Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
I see no evidence of any LENR related conference, presentation, showcase, unlike last year... Even Defkalion corrected the enthusiams of a reporter (Jeane Manning I think) who announced a demo at NIWeek... It seems NI was afraid that LENR may eclipse NI usual business. 2013/7/15 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Hi, I was wondering if anyone can confirm or has information about the likelihood of Defkalion demo'ing at NI-WEEK. Cheers, Blaze.
[Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to hide the topic behind a new name. You are aware that according to mainstream literature the name low energy nuclear reactions is only a weak attempt to shed the negative connotation of cold fusion. Why would you think the use of another name would change that perspective ? The only way to getting cold fusion more into the mainstream is to get the more of mainstream into cold fusion and that won't work by simply relabeling it. One could argue that the first adopters amongst the mainstream are already listening very well. The university of Missouri, Elforsk, even the European commission is showing interest. Or does their involvement means they now have crossed over from the mainstream into the non-mainstream ? The article should not propose a name change for cold fusion, but a name change for mainstream science instead. Proposals are: not sticking one's neck out science, can I make a living with that science, we don't need new science, publish or perish science On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Wait a minute! Did not Widom, Larson, and Krivit not figure this out? Frank Z -Original Message- From: Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to hide the topic behind a new name. You are aware that according to mainstream literature the name low energy nuclear reactions is only a weak attempt to shed the negative connotation of cold fusion. Why would you think the use of another name would change that perspective ? The only way to getting cold fusion more into the mainstream is to get the more of mainstream into cold fusion and that won't work by simply relabeling it. One could argue that the first adopters amongst the mainstream are already listening very well. The university of Missouri, Elforsk, even the European commission is showing interest. Or does their involvement means they now have crossed over from the mainstream into the non-mainstream ? The article should not propose a name change for cold fusion, but a name change for mainstream science instead. Proposals are: not sticking one's neck out science, can I make a living with that science, we don't need new science, publish or perish science On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. I kind of see what you mean: when 'global warming' became 'climate change' and didn't even stop there, and became 'climate disruption', I had the feeling they were pushing at us. And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool over our eyes to somehow make spam profitable for even more people that it already is.
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
From Mark Gibbs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ Hi Mark, I suspect your latest FORBES article will generate plenty of discussion here. Obviously, you suspect something interesting is happening. something that warrants further research. I get that. Nevertheless, let the games begin! ;-) Personally, I think you have missed a critical point. The term, CF is essentially nothing more than a place holder word. I suspect every researcher and scientist who has studied this mysterious and little-understood phenomenon for over 20 years knows that. Attempting to invent another placeholder word, as you have suggested, such as AES will not help the cause. All that would accomplish is generate more criticism from skeptics and debunkers. Many of them would draw an analogy of watching a dog chasing its tail. Of course, it will be entertaining for them. They will simply say see! They don't know what they are doing! Are you sure you want to contribute to such a cause? From what I have noticed many individuals who don't like the CF word seem to have a personal axe to grind of their own. Have you considered doing some research on Mr. Krivit, from New Energy Times. He is one of the biggest detractors for using the CF word. Try to find out what kind of an axe he is trying to grind. It's possible you might find such research to be a fascinating adventure of human psychology, particularly since Mr. Krivit claims to be an impartial investigative reporter. As a former BoD member for NET I beg to differ. Last of all, let me go to the quote allegedly from David Goodstein: What all these [CF] experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. WTF! Is Goodstein serious? IMHO, critical examination needs to be performed by accomplished IMPARTIAL scientists and researchers intent on discovering what may or may not be going on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
While AES is a preferable name to either LENR or cold fusion, renaming now is probably premature ... ...under the circumstances, it seems to me that we are within a year or two of finding the precise cause for the anomaly - so, why not wait a bit longer? From: mark.gi...@gmail.com http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ I don't know what a good descriptive term might be but I'd suggest something like Anomalous Energy System (AES). attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Mark, you are correct about many theories being proposed but you are wrong about there being no theory that explains the effect. I have described such a theory in print and will give a major talk about the model at ICCF-18. This model can explain all the observed behavior as well as how the e-cat works. Naturally, this idea is too new for it to be generally understood or to be properly tested. Nevertheless, it is a huge step in the right direction that needs to be acknowledged. The phenomenon is not just defined by the conventional physics community, the skeptics, and by people who have not bothered to understand what is known. You have a responsibility to understand and report what is ACTUALLY known and understood. I hope you will take the time to do this. This issue is too important for it to be given the usual trivial treatment generally applied by the popular press to most issues. Ed On Jul 15, 2013, at 4:52 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
I asked Defkalion directly and got a non committal reply- neither confirming or denying. We do not disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18. I would say that I will be doing a small demo there and the powers that be are aware of that. I don't think it is a mater of eclipsing NI. Dennis From: alain.sep...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:45:02 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I see no evidence of any LENR related conference, presentation, showcase, unlike last year...Even Defkalion corrected the enthusiams of a reporter (Jeane Manning I think) who announced a demo at NIWeek... It seems NI was afraid that LENR may eclipse NI usual business. 2013/7/15 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Hi, I was wondering if anyone can confirm or has information about the likelihood of Defkalion demo'ing at NI-WEEK. Cheers, Blaze.
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
name/word games do not change the physics. How long have circuit diagrams used the direction positive current flow even when we know it is electrons? Historical terms tend to stick. Dennis From: mgi...@gibbs.com Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:52:49 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Since Mark's suggestion will prompt a flurry of thought, and possibly a few more suggestions which are influenced by the present agenda of interested observers, here are a few alternatives from the far-fringe (with a rationale) - pending future evidence for accuracy. Obviously, there is a slant, on this list, towards Rossi's HT reactor being a state-of-the-art breakthrough in understanding and a corresponding marginalization of prior art (which will rankle a few feathers). 1) PCR or polariton catalyzed reaction (giving attention to the modus operandi) 2) PCF or polariton catalyzed fusion (assuming that real fusion always results) 3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible proton fusion (which is my personal agenda based on the solar model of reversible proton fusion RPF) This reaction can produce a small amount of QCD-based mass-to-energy conversion, sequentially at the expense of average proton mass (more detail on request) Given that PCRPF - as an acronym is a definite no-go: way too clunky to ever catch-on, but given that RPF is an accepted mainstream theory of gamma-less fusion with a strong model in cosmology and physics (our sun) then the shorter but less precise acronym: PCF should suffice nicely from this perspective ... assuming, of course, that adequate proof arrives both of the polariton aspect and the fusion aspect. PCF gets my vote (until the next breakthrough). _ From: Jones Beene While AES is a preferable name to either LENR or cold fusion, renaming now is probably premature ... ...under the circumstances, it seems to me that we are within a year or two of finding the precise cause for the anomaly - so, why not wait a bit longer? From: mark.gi...@gmail.com http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ I don't know what a good descriptive term might be but I'd suggest something like Anomalous Energy System (AES). attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
My response posted at the Forbes site: With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is a very expensive and difficult experiment.) There is no doubt that cold fusion is a nuclear effect. In addition to helium, it produces tritium, neutrons and x-rays. A chemical effect is ruled out because: there is no chemical fuel in the cell; no chemical changes are observed; and with many cells, a device weighing a few grams has produced as much energy as thousands of grams of the most potent chemical fuel. Researchers at Amoco concluded: “The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . .” http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf I disagree with David Goodstein. Most researchers in this field have been mainstream academic scientists. Many of them have been distinguished leaders such as the late P. K. Iyengar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society. The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
On 2013-07-15 16:01, DJ Cravens wrote: I asked Defkalion directly and got a non committal reply- neither confirming or denying. We do not disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18. This is unconfirmed news, but it seems there will be a Defkalion GT demo in Milan, Italy on July 22nd which will be live streamed on the internet and during ICCF18. Some skeptics, scientists and journalists from the international press have been invited to this demo. More details will be made available in due time. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to hide the topic behind a new name. I agree. I would add that the many names that have been proposed and are now used were never intended to disguise the nature of the research, like a euphemism. This is a myth. No one expected these new words to sway the skeptics. I know this because I was there -- I took part in the discussions proposing these new terms. People began calling it LENR because they thought that was more accurate technically. Martin Fleischmann in particular did not like the term cold fusion. It makes no difference what you call something. It is what it is. All words are technically inaccurate. As linguists say, the word is not the thing. Nearly all words are based on earlier concepts applied to new ideas. This is been true since the beginning of language. For example, the word understand is derived from standing under something. To understand is to grasp that which underlies the thing, metaphorically. Many new words begin as metaphors. Most computer vocabulary was invented since 1945. It derives from two sources: 1. Old words applied to new concepts such as register. 2. New words made up for the purpose such as software or input. Most of these words use older words compounded to form new meanings. A few of the new words are whimsical, such as byte which derives from the word bite (what you do with your teeth). It relates to bit which is loosely derived from binary digit but actually just means a small thing, just as it does in the older definition. Completely new words without any roots in existing language are extremely rare. One example is the word Google which was invented by a child, and which was accidentally spelled wrong in the website name. In English, 19th century neologisms tended to be derived from Greek and Latin roots, such as telephone. 20th and 21st century neologisms are usually derived from Anglo-Saxon words. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'moab2...@googlemail.com'); wrote:
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain
old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet
another name. To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to
hide the topic behind a new name.
I agree.
I would add that the many names that have been proposed and are now used
were never intended to disguise the nature of the research, like a
euphemism. This is a myth. No one expected these new words to sway the
skeptics. I know this because I was there -- I took part in the discussions
proposing these new terms. People began calling it LENR because they
thought that was more accurate technically. Martin Fleischmann in
particular did not like the term cold fusion.
It makes no difference what you call something. It is what it is. All
words are technically inaccurate. As linguists say, the word is not the
thing. Nearly all words are based on earlier concepts applied to new ideas.
This is been true since the beginning of language. For example, the word
understand is derived from standing under something. To understand is to
grasp that which underlies the thing, metaphorically. Many new words begin
as metaphors.
Most computer vocabulary was invented since 1945. It derives from two
sources:
1. Old words applied to new concepts such as register.
2. New words made up for the purpose such as software or input. Most
of these words use older words compounded to form new meanings.
A few of the new words are whimsical, such as byte which derives from
the word bite (what you do with your teeth). It relates to bit which is
loosely derived from binary digit but actually just means a small thing,
just as it does in the older definition.
Completely new words without any roots in existing language are extremely
rare. One example is the word Google which was invented by a child, and
which was accidentally spelled wrong in the website name.
In English, 19th century neologisms tended to be derived from Greek and
Latin roots, such as telephone. 20th and 21st century neologisms are
usually derived from Anglo-Saxon words.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. I kind of see what you mean: when 'global warming' became 'climate change' and didn't even stop there, and became 'climate disruption', I had the feeling they were pushing at us. As far as I know, this has never been done with the intention of disguising the subject matter, or fooling people. These words are no sense euphemisms. People make up a variety of different names for the phenomenon because they want a more technically accurate description. Also there is tons of evidence for global warming. Rejecting it is irrational and unscientific, like rejecting the evidence for cold fusion. And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool over our eyes to somehow make spam profitable for even more people that it already is. That is incorrect. They invented the term unsolicited commercial e-mail for legal purposes, so that a crime could be defined carefully by legislation. When someone sends vacation photos to a long list of people, you might call that spam. That term is informal and was never defined in law. Laws relating to unsolicited commercial email would not apply to unsolicited vacation photos. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :) Not gonna happen. People who use technology from its earliest stages tend to stick to original words for things. To the end of his life Orville Wright spelled his invention aeroplane. That is more technically accurate but everyone else in the U.S. soon called it an airplane. Winston Churchill used all kinds of obsolete words, such musket for rifle. (That was technically inaccurate; muskets are smooth bore but rifles are rifled.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Mark: Good article, and I'm pleased to see that you've taken the time to look thru papers at lenr.org. more than most so called journalists have done. My gripe is with the attitude of the 'so called' physicists. It shouldn't matter WTF it is called. it is anomalous, and SCIENCE is about understanding ANOMALIES! Their pitiful excuse is just that. pitiful, and unbecoming a scientist. -Mark Iverson From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Gibbs Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:46:46 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool over our eyes to somehow make spam profitable for even more people that it already is. That is incorrect. They invented the term unsolicited commercial e-mail for legal purposes, so that a crime could be defined carefully by legislation. When someone sends vacation photos to a long list of people, you might call that spam. That term is informal and was never defined in law. Laws relating to unsolicited commercial email would not apply to unsolicited vacation photos. Interesting, thanks.
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf *Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water * There is an area a science where orthodox science gradually descends into pseudoscience as the power that activates the induced nuclear reaction decreases. Recent theoretical work shows the capability of laser radiation to directly excite nuclear levels of energy. However, exciting a nuclear transition would require an X-ray or gamma-ray lasers with an intensity greater than 10^^20 Watts/cm2. When asked, most scientists would consider this type of laser experiment to be included in the realm of authentic science. This type of experiment is reproducible, easy to analyze, and dependable. However, when laser irradiation is combined with nanoparticles suspended in a liquid (colloidal solution) the activation level of the nuclear reaction drops to a peak laser intensity levels of 10^^10 - 10^^13 W/cm2. This low level of reaction stimulation is below the level that is going on in a Ni/H reactor which is at least 10^^15 W/cm2. So pseudoscience is determined by the power level of the activation of the reaction. If logic is used in scientific thinking, the definition of valid science can be precisely quantified by the power level of the activation of the nuclear reaction. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes: I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood. Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown. There are countless words with origins based on mistakes, such as American Indian. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
I still label mine- HOPE , hydrogen or proton effect. With the understanding that hydrogen includes all isotopes of H. :) D2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes: I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood. Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown. There are countless words with origins based on mistakes, such as American Indian. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Hi, On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote: 3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible proton fusion The thing is you need some kind of catchy Acronym. The above could be abbreviated to Polca Repro fusion; which can again be abbreviated to PoRe fusion ;-) And pore fusion could in essence link to the principle of the use of cavities. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
I think the right of name giving belongs to the researchers or the company that will work out the very first energy source based on hydrogen-metal interaction. Peter On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:53 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I still label mine- HOPE , hydrogen or proton effect. With the understanding that hydrogen includes all isotopes of H. :) D2 -- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes: I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood. Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown. There are countless words with origins based on mistakes, such as American Indian. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Nanoplasmonic Induced Transmutation (NIT). The name needs to be generalized to describe all know anomalous nuclear reactions which are outside the purview of orthodox nuclear physics. This should cover lightning reactions, nebular, solar, and the many forms of cavatation. At this early stage, it is difficult to make such a generalized classification because there are decades of RD required to verify the implied assertion that Nanoplasmonics underlie all of possible unexplained nuclear reactions. So a good generalized placeholder name that implies nothing should be used until a universal scientific consensus is formed that reflects the physical underpinning of the reaction in its broadest scope. Maybe a honorable name would be the “Fleischmann reaction” to honor the founder of both LENR and Nanoplasmonics. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Why not call cold fusion: This is no threat to hot fusion (TINTTHF) and count on every one being as easily fooled as this discussion assumes? Ed On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Hi, On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote: 3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible proton fusion The thing is you need some kind of catchy Acronym. The above could be abbreviated to Polca Repro fusion; which can again be abbreviated to PoRe fusion ;-) And pore fusion could in essence link to the principle of the use of cavities. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
When I discuss my interests with people that do not follow LENR progress I find that the best way to get them to understand which subject I am referring to is to use the term Cold Fusion. That always works! There has been at least one main movie that many typical people has watched where that term stands out. I am afraid that a change of name merely makes less average folks aware of what is being discussed from a historical point of view. For this reason I suggest that we leave things alone for now since it is likely that very soon new developments in the field will overwhelm any possible gains achieved by changing the name. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Personally I think the phrase Cold Fusion describes itself fairly well. When it comes to the way fusion was initially obtained, which is very hot indeed, this alternate, new method of creating fusion is pretty damned cold, no matter which way you go about it. Maybe we should call it New Fusion, or maybe Alternative Fusion, but both of those just sound a bit too groovy. Bob At 03:52 AM 7/15/2013, you wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg] No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6492 - Release Date: 07/15/13 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3204/6492 - Release Date: 07/15/13
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
X-Rated Fusion XXX Fusion Harry On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes: I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood. Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown. There are countless words with origins based on mistakes, such as American Indian. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
X-Rated physics. Not for prudes. Harry On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: X-Rated Fusion XXX Fusion Harry On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes: I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood. Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown. There are countless words with origins based on mistakes, such as American Indian. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Hi, On 15-7-2013 21:06, H Veeder wrote: X-Rated Fusion XXX Fusion Only to be applied after 10:00 PM ;-) Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: Personally I think the phrase Cold Fusion describes itself fairly well. I think so too. I get why it upsets the plasma fusion people. I do not understand why it bothers other people, such as the people who hang out at Wikipedia, or Steve Krivit. They do not have a dog in this fight. Why do people who know nothing about plasma fusion theory get so het up about a challenge to it? If this was a challenge to quantum electrodynamics maybe a dozen people in the world would care. When it comes to the way fusion was initially obtained, which is very hot indeed, this alternate, new method of creating fusion is pretty damned cold, no matter which way you go about it. In the future, people will think of this as the normal method of producing fusion, and they will call the other kind hot fusion. That expression has already become common, I hope to the chagrin of the plasma fusion scientists. Whatever is discovered first is considered normal. - Jed
[Vo]:18 LENR videos
FWIW A set of 18 videos (large litter) of LENR experiments from Quirino Cuccioli http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZb44OqgUT0 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:18 LENR videos
What is this about? Is there a paper? And what's with the music? I miss the days when scientists were squares who listened mainly to classical music instead of dreadful popular music. I saw the photos of the staff at Nature a few years ago. They are dressed undergrads circa 1975. I guess they were. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
My response at the Mark Gibbs blog: A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon” since, at this point, it is interpreted by physics authorities to be merely a sociological phenomenon that originated with the two named perpetrators, and, by those skeptical of the physics authorities, as potentially recognizing the heroism of the named partners. Once the mechanism is known — whether it was “delusion and incompetence” or real physics — a more specific name can be properly applied. Yes, the physics authorities will object to this more neutral description, but that is simply because they are the “true believers” in their interpretation of the FPP. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon” I think Fleischmann-Pons effect is more in line with the names of similar discoveries. Some people do call it this. It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an experimental error, but then it would not be a phenomenon either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be appropriate as it named the original perpetrators of this incompetence and delusion that went on to infect the fringes of science for years to come. Their only problem is that the physics authorities have gone beyond viewing it as a mere phenomenon and have explained it to their satisfaction as true believers in the incompetence and delusion of FP. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon” I think Fleischmann-Pons effect is more in line with the names of similar discoveries. Some people do call it this. It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an experimental error, but then it would not be a phenomenon either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
FPP is good! On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be appropriate as it named the original perpetrators of this incompetence and delusion that went on to infect the fringes of science for years to come. Their only problem is that the physics authorities have gone beyond viewing it as a mere phenomenon and have explained it to their satisfaction as true believers in the incompetence and delusion of FP. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon” I think Fleischmann-Pons effect is more in line with the names of similar discoveries. Some people do call it this. It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an experimental error, but then it would not be a phenomenon either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata Effect, and the Stringham Effect. All are cold fusion, but the names identify different methods and give credit. As for the name, everyone knows about cold fusion. Changing the name only invites a charge of trying to hide the actual claims. Ed On Jul 15, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon” I think Fleischmann-Pons effect is more in line with the names of similar discoveries. Some people do call it this. It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an experimental error, but then it would not be a phenomenon either. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
http://22passi.blogspot.fr/2013/07/stasera-defkalion-ospite-di-moebius.html#1373899462684 MYSTERY said ... @ Thu , 22 In the demo there will be a representative of CICAP, a physicist from what I understand, journalists from the BBC and will be streaming at the same time to another streaming dall'ICCF18, there will be enough room for other people, technicians, curious , etc.. From about 20 days are repeated trials and demonstrations in Milan only for customers and for about a couple of months in Canada forever just to customers. CICAP .. *CICAP, the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal,* promotes a scientific and critical enquiry of supposed paranormal and mysterious phenomena Unconfirmed rumor at this point, but if true: (face palm) On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-07-15 16:01, DJ Cravens wrote: I asked Defkalion directly and got a non committal reply- neither confirming or denying. We do not disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18. This is unconfirmed news, but it seems there will be a Defkalion GT demo in Milan, Italy on July 22nd which will be live streamed on the internet and during ICCF18. Some skeptics, scientists and journalists from the international press have been invited to this demo. More details will be made available in due time. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata Effect, and the Stringham Effect. Yes -- FP effect tends to refer to D2O electrolysis with palladium (or maybe titanium). In more general contexts, I personally like cold fusion -- it seems to capture the end result of whatever is going on when you look at the palladium and titanium experiments. I assume something analogous, if not exactly the same, is going on with nickel. LENR and cold fusion are fine, but when people use other acronyms and terms it is awkward -- LANR, CANR, weak interactions, etc. It sounds like people trying to carve out a niche for themselves. I get the impression that it is generally understood that LENR and cold fusion are just placeholder terms until what is going on is sorted out. In a different connection, I like the Goodstein piece. I think the gist of what he is saying is, hey mainstream physicists, stop being silly and take a look at what these guys are doing. I assume he's saying it indirectly and subtly because he doesn't want to sound like a mental weakling. But that was way back in 2002 (that's the date on the current version of the article; I thought it was written in 1994, for some reason). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
On 2013-07-16 03:23, blaze spinnaker wrote: Unconfirmed rumor at this point, but if true: (face palm) Towards the end (minute 32:50 onwards) of the following podcast (in Italian) of a radio show about science and technology (Moebius [1], from Radio24, an all-news radio station owned by the newspaper Il Sole24 Ore [2]) the hosts briefly mention that: - A cold fusion demo will take place on July 22nd at around 23:30-00:00 italian time; - They have been invited to participate in it and to bring an expert of their choice to supervise the demo and discuss about possible tricks; - More details about it (they hardly mention any during the show) and a live stream will be soon made available on the radio station website [3]; - They will cover this event again on their next show; + Other small things I might have missed (most of the segment is a quick overview of CF/LENR history and about how physics sometimes can appear to be settled science although it never really isn't). http://audio.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/radio24_audio/2013/130714-moebius.mp3 They don't directly link Defkalion GT to this demo, but the hearsay information I've read around (22passi like you pointed to and a different blog where the same author occasionally writes) does and seems reliable. So, it's still mostly unconfirmed news but a demo of some sort will most definitely occur on July 22nd. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/programma/moebius/index.php [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_24_%28Italy%29 [3] http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
They don't directly link Defkalion GT to this demo, but the hearsay information I've read around (22passi like you pointed to and a different blog where the same author occasionally writes) does and seems reliable. Which blog is that? I read about this via lenr-forum.com Alain is pretty good at spotting things quickly.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion to demo at NI-WEEK .. can anyone confirm?
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:48:47 PM http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/preparata Google-translated comment : Andrea writes: July 15th, 2013 at 2:33 pm In the demo of 22 there will be a representative of CICAP, a physicist from what I understand, journalists from the BBC and will be streaming at the same time to another streaming dall'ICCF18, there will be enough room for other people, technicians, curious, etc. . From about 20 days are repeated trials and demonstrations in Milan only for customers and for about a couple of months in Canada forever just to customers. - - - - Sicks, if true. Sounds even worse than a Rossi event.
[Vo]:Of Dipoles and Directions...
The evidence is overwhelming. . and as I've been saying for many years, electrons (and likely other subatomic 'particles') are a dipole-like oscillation of the underlying vacuum. Imaging electron pairing in a simple magnetic superconductor http://phys.org/news/2013-07-imaging-electron-pairing-simple-magnetic.html excerpt: With the samples held in the microscope far below their superconducting temperature, the scientists sent in bursts of energy to break apart the electron pairs. The amount of energy it takes to break up the pair is known as the superconducting energy gap. When the pairs break up, the two electrons move off in opposite directions. Emphasis on: WHEN THE PAIRS BREAK UP, THE TWO ELECTRONS MOVE OFF IN ***OPPOSITE*** DIRECTIONS There are several other examples of subatomic events where like or dislike particles go shooting off in opposite directions. QM cannot explain this since there is no physical or geometric element to the model. This type of physical model is what's missing from QM. and it explains a lot of observed phenomena, including: - electrons tunneling 'thru' the nucleus - flying off in opposite directions - LIKE charge particles pairing up when they should be REPULSIVE (ying/yang; two such oscillations 180 degs out of phase) - the reason why the E and B fields of an EM wave are perpendicular An electron is a PRESSURE oscillation of the vacuum. Model the vacuum as a near frictionless fluid under extreme pressure. Without a 'pressure', you have no impetus for movement at that scale. Assume the vacuum (zero point field) is at pressure 'p'. The electron involves an oscillation of the ZPF, and at its extremity, manifests itself as a region of pressure p+x on one side of the atom, and p-x (electron hole) on the OPPOSITE side of the atom. 10^-15 seconds later, the e- and the e-hole would appear to have exchanged sides. When you take ten thousand 'snapshots' of a hydrogen atom over time, or with a very slow shutter speed which is what most observations of an electron were done with, the electron APPEARS as a spherical shell since the dipolar oscillation is free to rotate in 3D about its center of oscillation; its center of oscillation being more of less in the 'nucleus' of the atom. If a single Hydrogen atom were held in an atom trap, and using static E and/or B fields, at some threshold field strength, the 'spherical' shell of the e- would disappear and reveal the electron's true nature, which is a dipole-like structure/shape. And they are getting close to achieving that: Submicrometer Position Control of Single Trapped Neutral Atoms http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v95/i3/e033002 This also ties in very nicely with the recently referenced work of Arie De Geus and Arthur Summera (the Electrinium Battery) mentioned in this msg: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84330.html Protons are similar oscillations, only at a much higher frequency and thus, much smaller dimension. The clues continue to mount-up. ;-) Anyone out there have the mathematical background to model this model??? -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Of Dipoles and Directions...
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: - electrons tunneling ‘thru’ the nucleus That's a weird one. When I first read about that one, it seemed a little off to me. There's this super dense quark-gluon plasma with all this energy, and the electron flies through the sea quarks without interacting with them (much). Maybe I've misunderstood the situation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Names are important. They have power, and, they flip like fashion. But no matter what you'd like to call it, when the technology descends, you will not decide the name, the company will not decide the name, the public will. The users of any technology will generate their own language to describe their world. Any imposed name is only a starting point. Rossi didn't think of shortening to Ecat, the fans did. (Perhaps someone on Vortex?) I am an advocate who has stood out on the street and spoke one-on-one with the public about this technology. It is clear: cold fusion is a superior term with the kids and young people. they do not have the prejudice that older people have. And they will be the users. I call it whatever name needs be, for whatever audience I have. It is a Rumplestiltskin reaction, and it's the bomb, too. I will be videotaping at ICCF. I will use multiple names for each person, according to their preference. that's just how cold fusion now rolls. On 7/15/13 3:52 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Bharat radiation
This is information about Bharat radiation was posted by Dr. M.A. Padmanabha Rao on another list. Bharat radiation is suppose to be radiation from radioisotopes which appear to emit UV rays instead of Gamma rays. Harry -- You may be interested in the following papers: LATEST DISCOVERIES IN NUCLEAR AND X-RAY PHYSICS, ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY, AND SOLAR PHYSICS: Discovery, Volume 4, Number 10, April 2013 http://www.discovery.org.in/PDF_Files/d_20130402.pdf Source of these discoveries: Padmanabha Rao MA, UV dominant optical emission newly detected from radioisotopes and XRF sources, Braz. J. Phy., 40, no 1, 38-46,2010. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttextpid= S0103-973320117 JOURNAL OF INDIAN SCIENCE CONGRESS CITED M.A. Padmanabha Rao’s Six Fundamental Physics Discoveries including the discovery of Bharat Radiation. P. K. Ray, Former Director, Bose Institute, Ministry of Science and Technology, Kolkata cited in his article SCIENCE, CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT — A CONNECTED PHENOMENA, Everyman’s Science Vol. XLVII No. 4, Oct ’12 —Nov ’12. http://www.sciencecongress. nic.in/html/pdf/e-book/oct-nov-2012.pdf LATEST DISCOVERIES IN SOLAR PHYSICS IN 2013 1. M.A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Sun’s Bharat Radiation emission causing Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and UV dominant optical radiation, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), Volume 3, Issue 2 (Mar. - Apr. 2013), PP 56-60, http://www. iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol3-issue2/H0325660.pdf 2. M.A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of Self-Sustained 235-U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), Volume 4, Issue 2 (Jul. - Aug. 2013), PP 06-24, http://www. iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue2/B0420624.pdf EXCERPTS OF THE PAPER: Sunlight phenomenon being one of the most complex phenomena in science evaded from previous researchers. Understanding the phenomenon needed advanced knowledge in the fields of nuclear physics, X-ray physics, and atomic spectroscopy. A surprise finding, optical emission detected from Rb XRF source in 1988 led to the discovery of a previously unknown atomic phenomenon causing Bharat radiation emission followed by optical emission from radioisotopes and XRF sources reported in 2010 [10]. The same phenomenon was found causing the Sunlight. However, it took nearly 25 years of research to reach the current level of understanding the Sunlight phenomenon reported here. BREAKTHROUGHS: (1) On the basis of fusion, many solar lines could not be identified previously and what causes these lines remained puzzling. Though 11 solar lines could be identified by other researchers, they became questionable. The significant breakthrough has come when it became possible now to identify as many as 153 lines on the basis of uranium fission taking place on Sun’s core surface. Surprisingly, the fission products released in Chernobyl reactor accident in 1986 also seem to be present in solar flares. (2) Explained what are Sun’s dark spots and their cause. (3) For the first time, it is shown what constitutes Dark Matter and showed existence of Dark Matter in Sun. (4) It is explained with unprecedented detail how Bharat Radiation from fission products (radioisotopes) causes Sunlight by an atomic phenomenon known as Padmanabha Rao Effect. What this 75-yr-old’s Story tells us About Discovery in India Read more: http://forbesindia.com/blog/technology/what-this-75- yr-olds-story-tells-us-about-discovery-in-india/#ixzz2ZAxRLHhk M.A. Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS) · Former Professor of Medical Physics (2001), Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swamy Rama Nagar, Uttarnchal · Former Deputy Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur , Rajasthan , India (1983-1997) · Former Lecturer, Department of Nuclear Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India (1964-1983) · Assembly Member, World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Tokyo , 1974 · And Chaired an Instrument session during First World Congress of Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo, 1974.
RE: [Vo]:Of Dipoles and Directions...
Eric, the reason the ‘tunneling’ electron doesn’t interact is because it is no longer at a different pressure; it is traversing the nucleus as a ‘flow’. That flow polarizes the surrounding vacuum, the polarization forming a barrier which impedes the flow, thus causing a build-up of ‘pressure’, and a equal and opposite reduction in pressure on the opposite end of the oscillations extent. In trying to visualize the p+x side of the oscillation, think of a balloon inflating. The physical balloon though is replaced by a growing polarized surrounding vacuum… all this obviously happening at extremely fast speeds (10^-15 sec). I don’t know if it’s accurate to say that the tunneling electron doesn’t ‘interact’ with the substance within the nucleus… I would bet that it does indeed; that there is some kind of coupling or attractive forces between them, and this is what keeps the electron oscillations with *that* nucleus and not separating from it to go wandering, or flying, off… There are harmonics at play between the electron oscillations and the nuclear ones, and you have to add enough energy before the e- oscillation jumps to a larger physical extent… add enough E to the oscillation and it exceeds the coupling with the nuclear oscillations and the e- escapes, (ionization energy). Can you think of any other observational phenomena which a dipolar model explains??? -Mark From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 9:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of Dipoles and Directions... On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: - electrons tunneling ‘thru’ the nucleus That's a weird one. When I first read about that one, it seemed a little off to me. There's this super dense quark-gluon plasma with all this energy, and the electron flies through the sea quarks without interacting with them (much). Maybe I've misunderstood the situation. Eric
