[Vo]:LENR an the human factor
In my opinion LENR is part of the real big story. There are myriads of people who already know this, e.g. E Squared von Pam Grout. She also quotes Stephen Hawking “What now appear as the paradoxes of quantum theory, will seem just as common sense to our children’s children.” http://de.scribd.com/doc/164517371/E-Squared-by-Pam-Grout-Complete Also very interesting: Jack Houck's Mental Access Window (1994) http://www.jackhouck.com/maw.shtml
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
These tests have been repeated thousands of times. Even if they were repeated millions of times they would not convince so-called skeptics. If 200 labs are not enough, 2,000 or 20,000 would not be enough either. The only thing that will convince opponents would be a commercial product. No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too many measurement errors. However, there is a pattern of something. The question is what's causing it and can it be scaled up reliably and safely. Meanwhile, we have very reliable and very safe things like Wind and Solar that don't require nuclear activity. That being said, what Technova is doing is interesting. Why is this interesting and the previous 14,000 similar experiments not interesting? This is not especially dramatic or clear-cut. It's interesting because Toyota is particularly credible.
[Vo]:Energy release, gravity and Spirit are connected
Dr. Robert Wood, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace: I have concluded that whatever the source of the propulsion gravity control is, is the same as the source of to release energy. And once you find one you find the other. And I also think you probably get a good hint on how psychic things work listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLGknsJ2Qg especially min 24:50
Re: [Vo]:Re:
A good person to ask this type of question might be Dr. Storms. He has his Ph.D in and long career history with radio-chemistry. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: One could compare the gamma emission of the metal as a powder with a corresponding similar mass of the same metal as a solid geometric form (say a sphere). Then using ordinary rules for absorption (not extraordinary rules), what should the activity be? I am sure this has been done, and if there was an extraordinary difference, it would have long since been researched and reported. You and Robin provide a good test case. I am less confident than the two of you that people's theoretical frameworks will not have led them to rationalize away a significant discrepancy that they might have noticed in the lab as an instrumental artifact relating to dust in the air or something similar. If someone knows of or comes across a study of this kind, I will be interested to read it. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Lou, I have ben positing this with respect to DCE, the change in casimir geometry and therefore the restriction of virtual particle sizes is just such a Maxwellian demon. Powered by change in geometry it creates boundaries that react asymmetrically to atoms vs molecules. It doesn't sort hot from cold but it sets the stage for discounting the disassociation level of molecules while ignoring atoms. If the area is heated such that the molecules approach disassociation this asymmetrical opposition to molecules will discount the threshold opening the door to over unity at the cost of geometry. I am convinced more heat can be released upon reassociation then the discounted value achieved by geometry and random motion of gas. You are essentially putting the random motion of gas in opposition to these geometrical boundaries. Fran -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons Those interested in thermodynamics may find the following worthwhile: Some recent papers showing that Maxwell's demon may not require energy - Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf Beyond Landauer Erasure http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4956 The latter is part of the journal 'Entropy' - Special Issue Maxwell's Demon 2013 http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/maxwells_demon2013 The following paper shows that computation needs no energy - if reversible. The Connection between Reversibility and Heat Generation http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~clh/p562/TPH/Bohn_TP.pdf Whether a spin (or other conserved quantity) reservoir can be created (or discovered) for less than the thermodynamic energy it returns in a novel engine is an intriguing question - and, also whether such engines can be scaled to macroscopic size. -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too many measurement errors. There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't list more than five. However, there is a pattern of something. The question is what's causing it and can it be scaled up reliably and safely. Obviously it can, since it has been. Why is this interesting and the previous 14,000 similar experiments not interesting? This is not especially dramatic or clear-cut. It's interesting because Toyota is particularly credible. Are you suggesting that Los Alamos, China Lake, the ENEA or SRI are not credible? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
I wrote: No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too many measurement errors. There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't list more than five. Let me add that waving your hands and claiming there have been too many measurement errors does not actually mean there have been too many measurement errors. People invent these problems out of whole cloth and then assume they exist. There are some bad measurements in cold fusion experiments, but those experiments are seldom held up as examples of the effect. They are not listed by Storms in his book. Most of the really bad measurements were done in experiments that produced no heat, or they were done in experiments where people tried to measure other parameters and ignored the heat, such as at Kamiokande. You can find bad measurements and sloppy work in any branch of science. Or for that matter in any branch of programming, banking, farming, the military or any other human activity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing website. ***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem to be left wing. I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ In detail here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend to be on the authoritarian end of the scale. John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end, because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no interest in learning the truth. ***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the dialog. But the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog. That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that you have preserved this text. The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months. ***Got links? I'll post them. This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18: Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe.* in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
yes Jed, it seems many people use the wildcard answer there have been errors... is there any peer-reviewed paper showing proven artifact, and was it corrected ? (just to answer to the usual pretended physicist who parrot wikipedia without any real fact in the mind). 2013/12/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too many measurement errors. There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't list more than five. However, there is a pattern of something. The question is what's causing it and can it be scaled up reliably and safely. Obviously it can, since it has been. Why is this interesting and the previous 14,000 similar experiments not interesting? This is not especially dramatic or clear-cut. It's interesting because Toyota is particularly credible. Are you suggesting that Los Alamos, China Lake, the ENEA or SRI are not credible? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative, open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor Altemeyer. LOL. I had previously thought of it more as cynicism towards politics... instead of left or right - and to be blunt, the present administration has been no less authoritarian than the previous one (in fact, due to leaks about NSA spying and DHS - possibly more authoritarian, rather than less). Curiously... for the name-phreaks amongst us, the German word meier, from which the surname Meyer derives, was a status name for a landowner or overseer... From: Jed Rothwell Kevin O'Malley wrote: This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing website. ***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem to be left wing. I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ In detail here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend to be on the authoritarian end of the scale. John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end, because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no interest in learning the truth. ***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the dialog. But the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog. That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that you have preserved this text. The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months. ***Got links? I'll post them. This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18: Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction. Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care. In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected but transmutation can and with great accuracy. Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event. Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Dear Axil here are alternatives for transmutations but no for heat energy. From its birth CF was considered an energy source. Energy is desired, transmutations rarely as for destruction of radioactive waste. Peter On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction. Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care. In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected but transmutation can and with great accuracy. Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event. Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Energy release, gravity and Spirit are connected
From: ka...@kabelmail.de Dr. Robert Wood, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace: I have concluded that whatever the source of the propulsion gravity control is, is the same as the source of to release energy. And once you find one you find the other. And I also think you probably get a good hint on how psychic things work listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLGknsJ2Qg This video/interview is definitely worth watching, whether you believe in the reality of UFOs at any level, or not. In the strong sense of alien life visiting earth from an advanced planet light-years away - the UFO phenomenon may have no physical reality in your world-view (and it has have none in mine) but nevertheless, Dr. Wood offers an explanation of how a superconducting charged toroid would be able to defy gravity at an attainable level of field intensity. (you will need to dig a bit deeper than this video to understand what he is saying at the 8+ minute mark). IOW - even a UFO skeptic would have to agree that this kind of antigravity is ultimately provable and has arguably been demonstrated by now in some black program, given the amount of funds which has been thrown at the problem. As to whether that makes the alien-life UFO more real ... given the fact that the saucer geometry can contain a toroid, whereas other more (seemingly) aerodynamic geometries cannot ... well, this could be coincidental even if the saucer sightings go back to an era when the antigravity properties of an electrostatic object in a self-field was not known... and thus the reality of UFOs must go to a level deeper than physical - into the ontological question of what is real. Is not a strong meme just as real, indeed more real, than a physical object, in terms of its ultimate influence on behavior? Is not any meme transferable without physical indicia? There is almost no doubt that the UFO meme is an influential reality on earth now, and even a decent probability that the meme was purposely sent here in a non-physical way from elsewhere. That is about as real as real can ever be. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Fully agree! In addition, heat is macroscopic result that doesn't say much about the why-what-and-where of the reactions. If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult.. What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are! I want to liken this to a system of N equations, with N unknowns. And we do KNOW exactly what happens when a nucleus A is hit by a projectile p. Hasn't someone stuck these transmutation percentages into a computer together with ALL known A + p = B + p nuclear reactions, already! This would produce a number of more (or less) likely chains of reactions, that together yield the EXACT mass spectrum of the transmutation products. (There are some downsides to this approach of course. Heat is measured now, transmutation products are measured later. For transmutation we need to subtract effects of external ionizing radiation (cosmic, for example), and natural isotope spread of the bulk material, and uncertainties due to impurities.) .s Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:20:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction. Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care. In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected but transmutation can and with great accuracy. Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event. Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat.
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Fran, An interesting perspective. Perhaps related to a paper in my stack (which I have yet only perused)? - Quantum Measurement Information as a key to Energy Release from Local Vacuums - Masahiro Hotta http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2272 (His other papers at arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Hotta_M/0/1/0/all/0/1) Still a contentious topic, but, hopefully, vacuum energy can be extracted. -- Lou Pagnucco Roarty, Francis X wrote: Lou, I have ben positing this with respect to DCE, the change in casimir geometry and therefore the restriction of virtual particle sizes is just such a Maxwellian demon. Powered by change in geometry it creates boundaries that react asymmetrically to atoms vs molecules. It doesn't sort hot from cold but it sets the stage for discounting the disassociation level of molecules while ignoring atoms. If the area is heated such that the molecules approach disassociation this asymmetrical opposition to molecules will discount the threshold opening the door to over unity at the cost of geometry. I am convinced more heat can be released upon reassociation then the discounted value achieved by geometry and random motion of gas. You are essentially putting the random motion of gas in opposition to these geometrical boundaries. Fran -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons Those interested in thermodynamics may find the following worthwhile: Some recent papers showing that Maxwell's demon may not require energy - Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf Beyond Landauer Erasure http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4956 The latter is part of the journal 'Entropy' - Special Issue Maxwell's Demon 2013 http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/maxwells_demon2013 The following paper shows that computation needs no energy - if reversible. The Connection between Reversibility and Heat Generation http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~clh/p562/TPH/Bohn_TP.pdf Whether a spin (or other conserved quantity) reservoir can be created (or discovered) for less than the thermodynamic energy it returns in a novel engine is an intriguing question - and, also whether such engines can be scaled to macroscopic size. -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Energy release, gravity and Spirit are connected
Given my view that the core of the Earth is probably a 6-d toroid of vacuum energy orbiting the sun due to quantum vacuum entanglement, I agree. On Friday, December 6, 2013, Jones Beene wrote: From: ka...@kabelmail.de javascript:; Dr. Robert Wood, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace: I have concluded that whatever the source of the propulsion gravity control is, is the same as the source of to release energy. And once you find one you find the other. And I also think you probably get a good hint on how psychic things work listen to Secret Projects at McDonnell Douglashttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLGknsJ2Qg This video/interview is definitely worth watching, whether you believe in the reality of UFOs at any level, or not. In the strong sense of alien life visiting earth from an advanced planet light-years away - the UFO phenomenon may have no physical reality in your world-view (and it has have none in mine) but nevertheless, Dr. Wood offers an explanation of how a superconducting charged toroid would be able to defy gravity at an attainable level of field intensity. (you will need to dig a bit deeper than this video to understand what he is saying at the 8+ minute mark). IOW - even a UFO skeptic would have to agree that this kind of antigravity is ultimately provable and has arguably been demonstrated by now in some black program, given the amount of funds which has been thrown at the problem. As to whether that makes the alien-life UFO more real ... given the fact that the saucer geometry can contain a toroid, whereas other more (seemingly) aerodynamic geometries cannot ... well, this could be coincidental even if the saucer sightings go back to an era when the antigravity properties of an electrostatic object in a self-field was not known... and thus the reality of UFOs must go to a level deeper than physical - into the ontological question of what is real. Is not a strong meme just as real, indeed more real, than a physical object, in terms of its ultimate influence on behavior? Is not any meme transferable without physical indicia? There is almost no doubt that the UFO meme is an influential reality on earth now, and even a decent probability that the meme was purposely sent here in a non-physical way from elsewhere. That is about as real as real can ever be.
[Vo]:Asked Answered
I agree with Axil, transmutation is a key sign. Overall, when dealing with the vacuum itself, it might be endothermic much of the time On Friday, December 6, 2013, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Axil here are alternatives for transmutations but no for heat energy. From its birth CF was considered an energy source. Energy is desired, transmutations rarely as for destruction of radioactive waste. Peter On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction. Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care. In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected but transmutation can and with great accuracy. Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event. Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Just Suppose
http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2013/12/america-is-launching-giant-world.html Suppose the earth was ruled by a group of arrogant, ugly sociopaths who have no respect for human rights and who wish to dominate the globe by any means available. Wouldn't it be funny if they chose a symbol reminicent of Cthulhu? Nah, that could never happen, could it?
[Vo]:Scientists Generate Magnetic Field by Using Heat Instead of Electricity
Scientists Generate Magnetic Field by Using Heat Instead of Electricity *In a newly published study, EPFL [ *Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ] *scientists have for the first time predicted and experimentally verified the existence of the Magnetic Seebeck Effect.* EPFL scientists have provided the first evidence ever that it is possible to generate a magnetic field by using heat instead of electricity. The phenomenon is referred to as the Magnetic Seebeck effect or ‘thermomagnetism’. A temperature difference across an electric conductor can generate an electric field. This phenomenon, called the Seebeck effect, lies at the root of thermoelectricity (heat turned into electricity), and is used to drive space probes and power thermoelectric generators, and could be implemented for heat-harvesting in power plants, wrist-watches and microelectronics. In theory, it is also possible to generate a magnetic field by using a temperature difference across an electrical insulator (‘thermomagnetism’). This has been referred to as the Magnetic Seebeck effect, and has enormous applications for future electronics such as solid-state devices and magnetic-tunnel transistors. In a breakthrough Physical Review Letters publicationhttp://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i8/e087205 that has been promoted to “Editors’ Suggestion”, EPFL scientists have for the first time predicted and experimentally verified the existence of the Magnetic Seebeck effect. *Thermoelectricity and ‘thermomagnetism’* The Seebeck effect (thermoelectricity) – named after Thomas Johann Seebeck who first observed it in 1821 – is generated when electrons in an electric conductor move as a response to a temperature gradient. On average, the electrons on the hot side of the conductor have more kinetic energy and subsequently move at higher speeds than the electrons on the cold side. This causes them to diffuse from the hot to the cold side, generating an electric field that is directly proportional to the temperature gradient along the conductor. Using an electrical insulator rather than a conductor, researchers led by Jean-Philippe Ansermet at EPFL have shown that a Magnetic Seebeck effect also exists. Because an insulator does not allow electrons to flow, a temperature gradient does not cause electrons to diffuse. Instead, it affects another property of electrons that forms the basis of magnetism and is referred to as ‘spin’... http://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-magnetic-field-using-heat-instead-electricity/
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction. You cannot understand it because it does not exist. No one is obsessed with excess heat. However, as Martin Fleischmann said heat is the principal signature of the reaction. He meant in comparison to other nuclear reactions. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care. Not according to David Kidwell. He thinks the evidence for transmutation is actually contamination. Transmutation into radioactive tritium is easy to detect, but transmutation into nonradioactive species with odd isotopic ratios is difficult to detect. Transmutation from deuterium to helium is very difficult to detect, because helium is ubiquitous. Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event. Yes, but it is very difficult to detect, because nuclear reactions produce millions of times more heat per gram of fuel than chemical reactions do. So you have to look for nanograms or picograms of material, and you do not even know what you are looking for. Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat. There is no such thing as a cold fusion apologist. Transmutation evidence is not convincing for most people. The excess heat is convincing to those who understand the laws of thermodynamics and the limits of chemistry. Apparently no one at Wikipedia, *Nature* or the American Physical Society understands these things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative, open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor Altemeyer. LOL. Why is this funny? This is social science research. Who else other than a professor does that kind of research, or writes books about it? It costs a great deal of money to do this research, and there is a very limited market for it. (I know that because my late mother was a leading social science researcher.) The fact that a professor said this is not evidence that it is wrong, or risible (or LOL in webspeak). I think Altemeyer presents good evidence for his claim. To clarify, there are many exceptions to the correlation between conservative views and high authoritarianism, as Altemeyer himself points out. For example, libertarians tend to be conservative about economics but low on the authoritarian scale. Liberal busybodies who favor politically correct speech may be high on the authoritarian scale. Many people have a mixture of high and low scale authoritarian tendencies, depending on the subject and on various extraneous factors. For example, a person might be in favor of legalizing pot while he opposes abortion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult.. It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of material mixed in with grams of contamination. Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces. What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are! Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs. If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative, open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor Altemeyer. LOL. Why is this funny? . well, I went on (to try) to explain the punage . but it must have been a bit too arcane. To wit: Curiously. for the name-phreaks amongst us, the German word meier, from which the surname Meyer derives, was a status name for a landowner or overseer. Thus, Professor Altemeyer would loosely translate as high level overseer or . ta da: authoritarian and this is reflected in his chosen work, or specialty - authoritarianism. There is a fascinating sub-genre of puns called names that work . made semi-famous by journalist Herb Caen. you know . a Jazzman named Strayhorn, or an evangelist named Sunday, or a baseball player named Homer.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. How to do a cheap experiment demonstrating LENR through transmutation. Build a spectroscope using trash. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cd_spectroscope/spectroscope.html Buy some ultrapure carbon electrodes. http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-graphite-probes-carbon-electrodes-atomic-absorption-spectrometry-AA-/230944043453?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item35c55671bd This listing is for 4 new graphite probes/ carbon electrodes. They measure 4 inches (10 cm) long and .25 inches (0.6 cm) wide. This lot has been tested for presence of metals with the following results (in ppm) Silicon: 1 Aluminum: 0 Iron: 0 Magnesium: 0 Calcium: 0 Boron: 0 others: 0 If not satisfied for ANY reason, send it back within 60 days for a refund. Check out my other listings since I combine shipping. Thank you for your interest. Any pure element will due as an electrode material: tungsten, iron, etc. Make some ultrapure water and put it in a bottle. Pass current through the ultrapure electrodes as it sparks in the ultrapure water. Take a picture of the spectrum of the light from the arc emitted from the electrodes. Take subsequent pictures of the arc light at regular intervals until new spectral lines from transmuted elements appear. What we are looking for is a CHANGE in the spectral lines not absolute values. QED WHEN CHANGE IS FOUND, transmutation proved along with LENR. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult.. It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of material mixed in with grams of contamination. Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces. What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are! Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs. If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Hmm, you won't be measuring transmutation products by weighing them. Also, pure materials are more pure than you suggest (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?interface=Allterm=nickel+powderfocus=productmode=match partialmax). (In any case, the spectrum of a reference sample is just subtracted from the transmutated spectrum.) Also, I am assuming it is completely feasible to buy some atom mass spectroscopy service off a lab or Uni without it costing an astronomical amount. If the setup is advantageously configured you will get lots of heat (atom bomb for example), but if you were blindfolded you will get lots, some or none(tm). The latter three all have transmutations occurring. None(tm) means no heat, but with transmutation occurring. There also exists a result of none(nout) which means no heat and NO LENR. The whole point of this is the importance of deducing which reactions are occurring, to help us find our way to the advantageous configuration (lots of heat). (Advantageous if you're interested in heat). .s From: jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:57:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult.. It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of material mixed in with grams of contamination. Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces. What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are! Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs. If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
Obviously it can, since it has been. I long ago realized never to say something like this publicly unless - I had personally done it myself - Someone everyone trusts had done it On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No. I think you're caught up in some sort of conspiracy mindset loop. I think there are a lot of people that want to believe but have burned by too many measurement errors. There have not been many measurement errors. I'll bet you can't list more than five. However, there is a pattern of something. The question is what's causing it and can it be scaled up reliably and safely. Obviously it can, since it has been. Why is this interesting and the previous 14,000 similar experiments not interesting? This is not especially dramatic or clear-cut. It's interesting because Toyota is particularly credible. Are you suggesting that Los Alamos, China Lake, the ENEA or SRI are not credible? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Thus, Professor “Altemeyer” would loosely translate as “high level overseer” or … ta da: “authoritarian” and this is reflected in his chosen work, or specialty - authoritarianism. Ah. You should tell him. See what he says. He is a funny guy. There is a fascinating sub-genre of puns called “names that work” … made semi-famous by journalist Herb Caen… you know … a Jazzman named Strayhorn, or an evangelist named Sunday, or a baseball player named Homer… As in the Japanese astronaut Akihito Hoshide. Hoshide (星出) means the stars come out or it could mean go out to the stars. Or the Japanese news cameraman Hiroki Gomi who picked up an exploded bomb after the war in 2003. It exploded in the airport in Jordan, killing one and injuring others. In Japanese the family name is first, so that's Gomi Hiroki (五味宏基) which sounds a lot like is willing to pick up trash (gomi hirou ki). I read a strange book once that claimed Churchill was a stable conservative mellow fellow like his name, and Hitler was abrupt and violent like his name. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I had the opportunity to participate in some mass spectroscopy experiments while at Uni. The method was based on having a whisker of the material you want to test, at a high voltage potential. The point of the whisker was only atoms wide. You pulse the high voltage, and this leads to the outmost atoms being boiled off and pulled towards a screen where you could actually see in image corresponding to the atomic structure of the tip. I can't remember how the masses were determined, but being ionized I suppose the atoms were accelerated through a magnetic field, with the resulting bend radius corresponding to mass. Or thereabouts *lol* Btw, Bockris sent lots of samples off to measure mass distribution after transmutation. .s Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. How to do a cheap experiment demonstrating LENR through transmutation. Build a spectroscope using trash. http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cd_spectroscope/spectroscope.html Buy some ultrapure carbon electrodes. http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-graphite-probes-carbon-electrodes-atomic-absorption-spectrometry-AA-/230944043453?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item35c55671bd This listing is for 4 new graphite probes/ carbon electrodes. They measure 4 inches (10 cm) long and .25 inches (0.6 cm) wide. This lot has been tested for presence of metals with the following results (in ppm) Silicon: 1 Aluminum: 0 Iron: 0 Magnesium: 0 Calcium: 0 Boron: 0 others: 0 If not satisfied for ANY reason, send it back within 60 days for a refund. Check out my other listings since I combine shipping. Thank you for your interest. Any pure element will due as an electrode material: tungsten, iron, etc. Make some ultrapure water and put it in a bottle. Pass current through the ultrapure electrodes as it sparks in the ultrapure water. Take a picture of the spectrum of the light from the arc emitted from the electrodes.Take subsequent pictures of the arc light at regular intervals until new spectral lines from transmuted elements appear. What we are looking for is a CHANGE in the spectral lines not absolute values. QED WHEN CHANGE IS FOUND, transmutation proved along with LENR. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult.. It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of material mixed in with grams of contamination. Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces. What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are! Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs. If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have the equipment, the expertise or the funding. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Energy release, gravity and Spirit are connected
Bob believes the source of energy is the ZPF.
[Vo]:List of nickel hydrogen cold fusion web sites
Compiled by M. Srinivasan. See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=308#NiCF
Re: [Vo]:Scientists Generate Magnetic Field by Using Heat Instead of Electricity
I wonder if Rossi's early foray into thermoelectrics led him to successful cold fusion via some version of the Seebeck effect. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Scientists Generate Magnetic Field by Using Heat Instead of Electricity *In a newly published study, EPFL [ *Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ] *scientists have for the first time predicted and experimentally verified the existence of the Magnetic Seebeck Effect.* EPFL scientists have provided the first evidence ever that it is possible to generate a magnetic field by using heat instead of electricity. The phenomenon is referred to as the Magnetic Seebeck effect or ‘thermomagnetism’. A temperature difference across an electric conductor can generate an electric field. This phenomenon, called the Seebeck effect, lies at the root of thermoelectricity (heat turned into electricity), and is used to drive space probes and power thermoelectric generators, and could be implemented for heat-harvesting in power plants, wrist-watches and microelectronics. In theory, it is also possible to generate a magnetic field by using a temperature difference across an electrical insulator (‘thermomagnetism’). This has been referred to as the Magnetic Seebeck effect, and has enormous applications for future electronics such as solid-state devices and magnetic-tunnel transistors. In a breakthrough Physical Review Letters publicationhttp://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i8/e087205 that has been promoted to “Editors’ Suggestion”, EPFL scientists have for the first time predicted and experimentally verified the existence of the Magnetic Seebeck effect. *Thermoelectricity and ‘thermomagnetism’* The Seebeck effect (thermoelectricity) – named after Thomas Johann Seebeck who first observed it in 1821 – is generated when electrons in an electric conductor move as a response to a temperature gradient. On average, the electrons on the hot side of the conductor have more kinetic energy and subsequently move at higher speeds than the electrons on the cold side. This causes them to diffuse from the hot to the cold side, generating an electric field that is directly proportional to the temperature gradient along the conductor. Using an electrical insulator rather than a conductor, researchers led by Jean-Philippe Ansermet at EPFL have shown that a Magnetic Seebeck effect also exists. Because an insulator does not allow electrons to flow, a temperature gradient does not cause electrons to diffuse. Instead, it affects another property of electrons that forms the basis of magnetism and is referred to as ‘spin’... http://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-magnetic-field-using-heat-instead-electricity/
Re: [Vo]:Kitamura ICCF18 presentation
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously it can, since it has been. I long ago realized never to say something like this publicly unless - I had personally done it myself - Someone everyone trusts had done it Martin Fleischmann and Stan Pons did it, in France, long ago. See the paper I linked to, above. I trust them. Maybe you don't, but I do.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Until people are sorted into governments that test their social theories, the Enlightenment will not have penetrated the social sciences, including political science. Only when people are sorted into governments that test their social theories will we have anything like true empirical support for public policies that, currently, are imposed uniformly on vast populations. This Enlightenment model is authoritarian in one sense -- in that it excludes people from environments that are testing social theories other than theirs. This is where the 10th Amendment Movement gets smeared as authoritarian. However, if one compares that brand of authority with the brand of authority that imposes social theories from the Federal government -- particularly since the New Deal -- one can see that we're dealing with left-wing authoritarians far more than right-wing authoritarians. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing website. ***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem to be left wing. I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ In detail here: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend to be on the authoritarian end of the scale. John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end, because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no interest in learning the truth. ***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the dialog. But the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog. That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that you have preserved this text. The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months. ***Got links? I'll post them. This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18: Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe.* in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf - Jed
