Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

[Adrian Ashfield]

Not so much as a weapon itself, but enabling weapons like robots and drones to 
operate for long periods without strings attached.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR



Martin Fleischmann worried about the possibility the cold fusion might be used 
for a weapon. He discussed that in his letters with Miles. The discussion is 
spread out over many letters. See p. 11, p. 430, and look for "D.U.":


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf



Martin told me that Edward Teller also worried that cold fusion might be used 
as a weapon.


I cannot judge whether cold fusion might be weaponized, but I am sure it will 
revolutionize every aspect of conventional weapons, just as steam engines 
revolutionized naval weapons in the 19th century. Without steam, you could not 
have ironclad warships with large, modern cannons. They would be too heavy. 
(Granted, there were lighter steel-hulled sailing ships in the late 19th and 
early 20th century.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Adrian Ashfield]

Lennart,
Thank you for replying.  I don't know if you got to the end of the long article 
and saw that I wrote it.
I won't rehash it here but merely point out that I think the Democratic 
platform is pathetic.
The Republicans are even worse as they seem to like starting wars.
Something is sadly wrong if China's GDP has grown at a rate of three times that 
of the US for 20 years.
Adrian

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage



Hello Adrian
Yes, most can skip it.
My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is of 
different kind and that some money are good and other not.
I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject briefly.
The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having highly 
educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better outcome is 
flawed.
The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital.
You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In our 
society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with no 
connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if the 
money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are heavily 
regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create companies like 
facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor.
I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a risk 
willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor. 
I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a Swedish 
say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of suffering, 
hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences required to 
progress.
Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important. Not to 
find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain the 
relationships so we can use that for further progress.
Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to make it 
better (or fair if that is what we want).
Lennart


On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield  wrote:


Lennart,  the problem is deeper.  You may enjoy this but it is mainly political 
so most can skip it.
http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage



Bs


On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:



>From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, cold 
>fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed that a 
>practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. People 
>don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote:


". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest compact 
space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small amount of 
inexpensive fuel."

My response:

That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we could 
instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were generally 
known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on earth would be 
frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at the earliest 
opportunity.

The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you describe. 
We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power shown by 
Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more reliable version. 
If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of money ranging from 
several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no idea where in that 
range it will cost. The thing is: no one has any idea. No one knows whether it 
can be done, how it can be done, or how much it will cost. If anyone tells you 
they know these things, that is a good indication they don't know what they are 
talking about.

Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like the 
Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of millions. 
I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is probably hundreds 
of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. See:

http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1:

Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will put 
that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the same 
amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So we might 
never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, so the pace of 
progress is likely to be the same as it was with techno

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Adrian Ashfield]

Lennart,  the problem is deeper.  You may enjoy this but it is mainly political 
so most can skip it.
http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:An amazing Theory of Everything

[Adrian Ashfield]

Interesting.  Someone is thinking outside the box.
This link gives the author and few other details.
http://neutronsymphony.com/wp/published-papers/the-harmonic-neutron-hypothesis-derivation-of-planck-time-and-the-newtonian-constant-of-gravity-from-the-subatomic-properties-of-a-neutron-and-hydrogen/

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 2:38 pm
Subject: [Vo]:An amazing Theory of Everything



 
This is fabulous.
 
http://neutronsymphony.com/wp/
 
The main proponent seems to be DW Chakeres. The “Published Papers” segment has 
the relevant details with no pay-wall.
 
The premise includes a  “Scale-Free Derivation of the Neutron, Hydrogen Quanta, 
Planck Time, and a Black Hole from 2 and π”
 
No bad for a start and there is much more here which should be accessible to 
most of us.
 
IOW there is no arcane, deep math involved – undergrad level, thankfully with 
no string-theory garbage. 
 
… why has this not been given more attention ? 
 
Maybe because some of the self-appointed experts demand arcane math which only 
specialists can understand…
 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

Read this "A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of “Ni-H 
Cold-Fusion".
https://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html

So contrary to what Jones & Brian write, Ross's reactors worked from the early 
days.  They both did lots of experiments and Foracdi claims they reached a COP 
of 200.  Or do you think Focardi is lying too?

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

Pity you can't have an accident and stumble over something useful yourself.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 6:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



As was obvious from the start, your so-called evidence sucks…
 
 

From: Adrian Ashfield

 
As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, I see no 
point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is not going to show 
anything more of the QX until they are in production and he hopes that will be 
before the end of 2018.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 


 

Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 

 

This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !

 

Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.

 

But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 

 

Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?

 

Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 

 

He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.

  

 


From: Brian Ahern


 

There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either. 




From: Adrian Ashfield 


 



I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.


 




 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

As you won't believe anything short of working reactors on the market, I see no 
point in continuing this discussion. Rossi has stated he is not going to show 
anything more of the QX until they are in production and he hopes that will be 
before the end of 2018.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 4:34 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



 
Wait a minute – Adrian says he has independent evidence of a factory. 
 
This seems at first blush to be  irrational if not silly… but heck --  let’s 
hear or see this evidence !
 
Hopefully it will not come from Rossi or one of his sock puppets and hopefully 
there will be a building and assembly line and hopefully it will not be called 
JM Enterprises but maybe it will be filled with those robots which he promised 
were coming to Boston back in 2012 for that other factory, the one which was to 
make the prE-Scat before IH entered the picture.
 
But first – you do not need a factory---  do you !?! 
 
Actually Rossi could totally rehabilitate his crappy reputation with any honest 
and independent showing of a working device. Why build a factory without a 
product to show ?
 
Doesn’t it make more sense to have a physicist show the product being tested at 
a local University before you go over to the factory? 
 
He likes Sweden and Gothenburg would be an excellent choice for a reliable 
place with a top level  physics department - to test and show it off.
 
 
 

From: Brian Ahern

 
There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.
 


From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like 

 


I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like


 

There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.

 

If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 

 

There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.

 

 


From: Brian Ahern


 

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?

 

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.




 
 

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Adrian Ashfield]

I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like



 
There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.
 
If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist. 
 
There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.
 
 

From: Brian Ahern

 
The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?
 
This is an example of cognitive dissonance.
 

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jed,  I have never stated nor thought that everything Rossi has said or done 
should be accepted without question.  So you are making that up.

I think there is significant evidence that some of his E-Cats worked & 
suggested several times it would be better to wait and see than dismiss 
everything with the certainty that you do.

Why do you think he is building a factory?  As I reported elsewhere there is 
evidence that he is doing so.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:


Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.



You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be as 
irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand.


You imply that I am not capable of evaluating claims. If I can read McKubre and 
conclude that he is right, I can read the Penon report and conclude that Rossi 
is wrong.


The suggestion that a person who uses ordinary judgment and evaluates claim is 
somehow "ironic" is a new definition of irony.


Actually, I cannot imagine how a technically competent person could read the 
Penon report and not conclude that Rossi was wrong. Axil Axil and other Rossi 
supporters have finessed this problem by refusing to read the report. Robert 
Park used the same technique to reject all cold fusion results -- he refused to 
look at them. That's ironic!



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

So far so good, said the man after jumping off the top of a skyscraper.

Why do you suppose Rossi is building a factory?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 7:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.

[Vo]: Fast breeder thorium reactor

[Adrian Ashfield]

India about to step up its renewable energy game
https://www.rt.com/business/407709-india-russia-nuclear-reactor/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Adrian Ashfield
December 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi:
You say the E-Cat QX worked at limited power during the Stockholm event at the 

IVA (20 W). What is its real power?
Regards,
Adrian Ashfield


Andrea Rossi
December 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM

Adrian Ashfield:
Average 60 W, max for continuous operation 100 W
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Adrian Ashfield]

 


 the demo served no net purpose 

 


Andrea Rossi

November 29, 2017 at 4:32 PM


Italo R.:
Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that 
will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days 
have been momentous.
Warm regards,
A.R.


On the lenrforum, moderator Alan Smith said he talked to seven investors, some 
existing.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Adrian Ashfield]

"he “ought to have” seen something valid, but if so, he has done a grand job of 
hiding it and making success look exactly like fraud looks."

You can tell what good job he is doing because he isn't giving any more demos 
and is not asking the public for a dime.  Obviously a brand be scam where you 
don;t make any money.  Genius!

Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

[Adrian Ashfield]

I don't agree.  The measurements of energy out & in were good enough to 
demonstrate the basic characteristics of the QX.  That was the purpose of the 
demo.  I t would be impossible to to do a replicable experiment without giving 
the IP away.

The pathosskeptics make much of the crude power pack with 60 W of cooling But I 
don't believe that power could be magically transferred to heat the water.  
What could Rossi possibly get from such a scam?  It's not to get money from the 
general public but possibly to interest venture capitalists: they would do 
their own due diligence, such as measuring the voltage across the reactor.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 10:16 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24



 
Video of demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkj-7whwpUk
 
Funny that few comments are coming out on this - other than from Mats, who 
would benefit if this demo meant anything positive.
In fact, it is not a demo in any real sense … it is disappointing theatre to 
all but the Rossi-flock.  In no way does this salvage Rossi’s credibility with 
scientists, nor that of Levi and the Swedes, who still look like dupes who 
should, but will not, retract their egregious errors at Lugano.
There is no useful information being supplied which can lead to verification or 
replication. Voltage appears to have been estimated from resistance… with 
pulsed power, that is a no-no and thus the input could have been hundreds of 
times greater than suggested. Why not measure input power at the plug and 
include the cooling power since it is required?
Given Rossi’s three decade long record of fraud and deceit as a backdrop – 
either independent replication or a commercial product will be the only thing 
that can help.
So far, this is little more than a crude repeat of the past 6 years except now 
there is even less relevant information to use in replication than with the 
past failures. Few will waste their time.
 
 

[Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

[Adrian Ashfield]

Apparently the demo will be taking place at 10am in the Royal Swedish Academy 
of Engineering.
You can see it streamed at ~ noon EST at www.ecat.com or http://ecatworld.org 
from which the following notes were taken.


 What is already known about E-Cat QX?
During the last year Andrea Rossi on several occasions has released carefully 
selected information from his R work with the  QX heat generator. Below are 
some statements recently compiled from his blog and his latest scientific 
publication:

QX (earlier named by Rossi “Quark X”) is a very small cylinder shaped plasma 
reactor generating large amounts of excess heat (0-100%), light (0-50%)and 
electricity (0-10%).
QX data- length 10mm-diameter 5mm- default output power 20W
An activated QX contains a plasma between two LiAlH4 charged nickel rods
QX plasma is charge neutral (Van de Graaff behaviour) ,  with voltage drop like 
an electrical conductor made by silver (Ag)
QX plasma default temperature –  >2300 Celsius
QX reactor default input power –  0.01W  (0.1V DC-0.1A)
QX power default power density – 30W/cm-3
Large output power can be obtained with combining many QX in a stack
1 MW power of QX stack  fits within 1 cubic meter (excl. heat exchanger)
QX modules will be reloaded in factory exchange system
Work on QX is now moving towards phase of industrialization with assistance of 
Hydrofusion and unknown partner(s) .
QX will be mass manufactured  by ABB robots. First factories will be placed in 
USA and Sweden.
Market introduction only after full economy of scale production is ready
On Nov 11 2017 the one year reliabilty test of QX reached Sigma 5 wich 
according Rossi secures following performance properties:
– COP is higher that 50 (>2 calculated from latest experiement)
–  Tested QX supplied 20W heat power continuously in a year
–  QX functions totally at least one year (8760 hours) on one charge
–  QX charge will last 10 years with 10% intermittent use
–  QX units are possible to control
–  No harmful radiation is present
–  No risk for run away or melt down
R  is started to adapt QX based heater to Stirling engine within a year
Universal mobile QX engine is in plans

Re: [Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint

[Adrian Ashfield]

 I would say you were wrong on all counts.  We should know in a week

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: VORTEX 
Sent: Sat, Nov 18, 2017 4:16 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint



Andrea will astound us on his upcoming demo.  I predict it will leave no real 
evidence of over unity operation.  I suspect he will demonstrate arcing outputs 
that are impossible to establish the I(t) x V(t) = power output .


I do expect a good show, but he will not allow critics to attend.


Since LENR is now a wasteland, he is the best entertainment and it gives me 
something to make conecutive predictions.

Re: [Vo]:dark matter update--Mills' hydrinoes are a good bet

[Adrian Ashfield]

Tghanks Axil,  I have seen that data and what you wrote on the other thread 
about conversion to electric power.  My eyesight is not good but that section 
of the Stirling engine was too simplified to figure out how it works.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 16, 2017 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:dark matter update--Mills' hydrinoes are a good bet



There is a lot of info on the "kilopower" that NASA is designing for Mars power 
to replace solar cells.


https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17087-nasa-kilopower-mars



The heat pipe driven Stirling converter is impressive at an efficiency of 38% 
at 800C.



On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

Axil,
Do you have any info on the Stirling engines.  I couldn't find anything useful 
on line.
Apart for the SunCell , it looks like it would simple enough to use the E-Cat 
QZ as the heat source.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:dark matter update--Mills' hydrinoes are a good bet

[Adrian Ashfield]

Axil,
Do you have any info on the Stirling engines.  I couldn't find anything useful 
on line.
Apart for the SunCell , it looks like it would simple enough to use the E-Cat 
QZ as the heat source.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Daniel,


ps.  I came across this piece after my last post that covers soe of the points 
I made.
http://mailchi.mp/epi/news-from-the-economic-policy-institute-74f85odszg?e=803fbad814

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Daniel,


Capitalism has a far better record for increasing a country's wealth than 
Socialism.  The problem with Socialism is that it reduces incentives to work. I 
lived in England when the top tax rate was 93% and on top of that there was a 
purchase tax of 33.3%.  What is the point of working harder and longer when you 
get to keep so little?  The government also nationalized major industries that 
prompt;y went downhill.  Many of us then emigrated.  It was known as the brain 
drain.


When I was young most businesses treated their employees better and there was a 
sense of loyalty in both directions.  Increased profits were shared to some 
extent.  T hat has all changed since the 1970s.
Richard Thaler,who has just won the Nobel prize in economics, has corrected 
some of the flaws in economic theory, but the damage has already been done. My 
point was that it will be a different game with 30 - 50% unemployed.  In 
general it would be better for the individual to decide how to spend his money 
rather than have some socialist bureaucrat do it.  Hence UBI.


 




-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 11:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.




Adrian,


It's a matter of perspective of to works for who and to whom. In my 
perspective, capitalism has been tried and never worked. Socialism (I reserve 
communism for something else, utopic) always worked better on average for most 
individuals, within my parameters. I didn't see it not working but rather being 
defeated by external force, in most places though( there is still North Korea 
and Cuba). The sheer lack of planning, leaving stuff for random market forces, 
will necessarily lead to ultimate destruction of capitalism, what comes next is 
anybody guess. 

Note, I didn't address the state of affairs as power, but of responsibility 
that a given system gives to individuals. I don't see greed as a thing or an 
issue at all. I don't see it greed arising from evolution, so I don't see it as 
human nature, it is lack of planning, lack of accountability, on ideological 
level. This is why I see socialism as more akin to human nature, but capitalism 
must be really destroyed, even at ideological level, similar to the idea of 
serfdom or slavery. Then, the idea of socialism will have to be destroyed in 
order to achieve communism.

 Robots and AI will always be under the command of some people, so, I don't see 
any hope in there. Machines will not achieve a transition to complete control 
out of nowhere, similar to sky net. I don't see technology as something that 
arises from a given economic system. It is rather applied scientific method to 
solve problems and that's it. So, the British taking technology here or there 
is not something good or bad, rather, it is its use that matters.


I don't hope to convince anyone, I am showing a way out, in case anyone reads 
this someday. I won't typein capslock like "Che" does, because, ultimately, as 
my father says, if you don't learn by means of love, you will learn by pain 
(and no, I am not saying in the hands of communists, quite the opposite).

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

Daniel Rocha, while I sympathize with your distress on human failings, I don't 
agree with much of the picture you draw.  I have lived in three countries, 
visited much of the world for work and been around Africa half a dozen times.  
I know very well what extreme poverty looks like. You really need to read some 
detailed history of the world and the rise and fall of civilizations.  I 
recommend Durant's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lessons_of_History.

Power is always a mixture of good and bad. Despite being badly treated the 
British colonies are arguably better off with some of Western technology than 
if they had been left alone.  The real problem is bad leaders with excessive 
greed and wars.  The American people voted in the present useless government.  
Whose fault is that?

Communism doesn't work.  It has been tried.  Socialism is easy to get wrong and 
doesn't take sufficient account of human behavior.  A new political system will 
be required for the coming age of robotics and AI.  UBI is the best I have come 
across: do you know of a better idea?
Sure, I wrote bout America that is rich enough to implement it.  It will be a 
disaster for poor countries as the need for cheap labor dies. I don't know of a 
good solution for them with their governments so inept.. With luck both food 
and energy will become cheap enough that not many will starve.


 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.




Adrian, I am talking about the whole world. The rot began in in a few places, 
in antiquity, when class society began. That is, ony part of the population got 
the best slice of the pie. It's difficult for some of us  who live in the 1st 
world (I live in the 3rd) and never saw what it is abject poverty. Sure, in 
absolute terms, indeed things improved, because there is internet, antibiotics, 
for most. But improving is not enough, because that's not human nature to 
accept inequality, despite the existence of hierarchies. This was never the 
case in our evolution and those who are higher in power had actually to 
personally respond to their community the reason of why they are there.

  The higher the rate of inequality, the more you will have a tendency to have 
violent society or the number of people in jail. It doesn't matter if you 
prohibit drugs or not, if you control weapons or not, that's just all red 
herring. The one who are poor, for generation, will always be in revolt and 
attempting violent acts against the ones who are better off. If you deregulate 
or regulate something, that won't matter for them, they will just change the 
type of weapons or what is used to get stuff in "the easy way".  

 There is a tendency for people to be leaders, to collectively own some items 
(pieces of land become such items when society becomes sedentary). There is a 
tendency to fight for things which are important, to the point of death, 
specially where there is scarcity. But, there is no justification for greed. 
Some people are good managers or some have some type of talent, and eventually 
ends up making other people to work for them. The product of such work,that is 
money, ends up being owned by whoever commands the employees(it could be 
master/slave, lord/serf, large share owner/employee).   There is a systematic 
to think that this is normal. But it is not. This is herd behavior akin to the 
dismissal of cold fusion. It is a cultural domino effect. 


I will give you a perspective of how things are progressively worse, on 
relative terms, which leads to worse unsolvable contradictions. For the 170 
years, there has  rational justification for scarcity. When European colonial 
powers laid down the telegraph under the oceans, they were able plan and to 
enforce the extraction of raw materials in any part of the world. Before that, 
that could only be done within the Americas, which was much closer, inhabited 
by people with a much lower level of technology, in general. But this was the 
beginning of a major contradiction, that is, it was possible to actually plan 
the economy in a global level, an utopia could be actually built. Instead, the 
opposite happened, an arms race started, large business were integrated to 
governments because technological levels raised to a point when even mowing 
down opponents was profitable enough to be justifiable.

 This kept going until keeping colonies was too costly, after WWII, and the 
awareness of the exploitation characteristic of colonization became too 
apparent and fragile. But not without a rather small elite in each of this 
countries appear. Unlike the 1st world, these were rather small and in absolute 
terms, their middle class are in general at a poverty level of the 1st world. 
If AI becomes powerful enough, there will not be anywhere to relay menial jobs. 
To make matters worse, it seems clear that the 

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

Interestingthread.  I disagree violence is inevitablefor the change but with 
the millionaire’s club called Congress running thingsit seems likely.
 
The rot startedwith Milton Freedman in 1976, stating that the purpose of 
business was tomaximize short term profit for the shareholders.  Business 
schools started teaching that andnow it is the normal practice.  Thisinevitably 
leads to growing income inequality that history shows always resultsin 
revolution if carried too far.
 
A better interimsolution is socialism as carried out by the Scandinavian 
countries.  These are now rated as better places to livethan America and they 
don’t have large slums and hundreds of thousands homelesspeople.   It would be 
far easier tochange the economic system that will be required by robotics and 
AI from thatstarting point.
 
Communism doesn’twork.  Greed is needed for motivation andeven if it started 
out with good leaders, Jerry Pounelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracyshows it will it 
fail.
What is requiredis something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) where the 
individual decides howto spend the money.  The limited trialsso far show that 
people actually become more productive.  If UBI is set at >$15.000 people won’t 
be soanxious about losing their jobs to AI and robotics. Switzerland proposed 
$30,000.

 
How to pay for itis the question.  It would replace allthe existing welfare 
schemes for starters. Healthcare costs could be halved by going to a single 
payer system asused by all the other advanced countries.  America has spent 
$14.2 trillion dollars on 13 wars I the last 30years.  The “defense” budget for 
2018 is$700 billion. Some could come from there. Taxation would pick up the 
rest.

 
Short of somedisaster, AI and technology will advance exponentially.  That 
people have money to spend is necessaryfor the economy to grow. Too many people 
here are in debt and can’t afford tobuy new stuff.  America could 
affordsomething like UBI but with our Congress a financial crash is more likely.

Re: [Vo]:Re: QuarkX demonstration

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian,
I'm glad you have reposted your nasty, uncalled for prediction for easy 
reference when you are shown to be wrong.
So the demo maybe three weeks later than his forecast many months ago.  Is that 
a crime?  It is starting to look like you are just jealous because unlike you, 
Rossi has actually discovered something.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Mon, Oct 2, 2017 10:30 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: QuarkX demonstration



Andrea Rossi promised a demonstration of the Quark X in October. Voila!


My 17th consecutive prediction of his behavior is:


No Demo, but I expect a great new excuse.


A.R. Is a master of plausible excuses and his coterie will once again blindly 
support him.










n.B. IH is not hosting ICCF 21. Are they gone for good?


 



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 9:32 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Test
 

Test

Re: [Vo]:Miles Pd-B alloy study uploaded

[Adrian Ashfield]

Incrcredibly long winded and difficult to follow.  Small wonder it has been 
gathering dust on the shelf.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Sat, Sep 30, 2017 9:43 am
Subject: [Vo]:Miles Pd-B alloy study uploaded



See:


 Miles, M., M. Fleischmann, and M.A. Imam, Calorimetric Analysis of a Heavy 
Water Electrolysis Experiment Using a Pd-B Alloy Cathode. 2001, Naval Research 
Laboratory: Washington. p. 155. (155 pages long)



http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcalorimetrd.pdf

This is an important paper.



Please let me know if you find problems with the Acrobat file, such as faded 
pages or noise (dots everywhere). I fixed several graphs. Figure A.2, on p. 62 
required drastic surgery with the program Paint.net noise reduction. I had to 
add new numbers on the X and Y axes.

When you first load this, you may see strange characters on p. 1. They should 
go away after the file fully loads.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Robots to begin replacing teachers within 10 years

[Adrian Ashfield]

AXIL,
The Khan Academy has already started this.
https://www.khanacademy.org/


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Sep 11, 2017 12:37 am
Subject: [Vo]:Robots to begin replacing teachers within 10 years



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/11/inspirational-robots-begin-replacing-teachers-within-10-years/




'Inspirational' robots to begin replacing teachers within 10 years

The former Master of Wellington College said programmes currently being 
developed in Silicon Valley will learn to read the brains and facial 
expressions of pupils, adapting the method of communication to what works best 
for them.

Re: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

[Adrian Ashfield]

I ddon't think such blatant libel should be allowed on Vortex.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?



It is not difficult to find funding if you have results. Vinod Khosla, a Forbes 
billionaire and successful venture capitalist, says that he actually looks for 
disruptive technology as his main parameter. Of course, it must work, as the 
primary ingredient.
 
Rossi is a scam artist who deserves no credit. In fact he is most fortunate not 
to have been prosecuted for false filings under oath - in US Federal Court - 
concerning the fraudulent JM shell company. According to IH, this and parts of 
his deposition constituted criminal perjury - and he is not in the clear on 
that yet, nor is his attorney. They may be thinking the bad-weather gods for 
Irma.
 
As for Etiam – they did raise R money in Finland and built a prototype, but 
apparently this device could not perform as hoped, and the funding was dropped. 
Same with CoolEssence. 
 
Had Rossi been able to prove in court that he had anything valuable at all in 
the way of positive results - then more than likely, Etiam and CoolEssence 
could have been in line for more R funding despite their failures … but 
essentially, what has happened to many researchers is that Rossi has 
essentially “poisoned the well.” 
 
Very little funding for LENR is out there now. That is why Mizuno is seen as 
somewhat of a savior for the field. Maybe Khosla will have a look – if and when 
Mizuno is replicated.
 
 
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 

From: Adrian Ashfield
 

"On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find 
funding for the development of disruptive technology"

But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others 
failing to do so.

 

 

 



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene  

http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/

 

BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104

 

It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 

 

There could be value there.

 

 

 

 


 
 

Re: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

[Adrian Ashfield]

"On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find 
funding for the development of disruptive technology"

But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others 
failing to do so.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 10:22 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?



 
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/
 
BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.
 
https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104
 
It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 
 
There could be value there.
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Sunspots, hurricanes and dense hydrogen

[Adrian Ashfield]

Stewart,
What was your point?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 8, 2017 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspots, hurricanes and dense hydrogen



Hurricane Harvey condensed 33 trillion gallons of water over land.  In industry 
you would pull a vacuum in a LARGE surface condenser with LOTS of surface area 
and the ability to remove LOTS of heat to sustain the VACUUM for condensing to 
continue.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/30/harvey-has-unloaded-24-5-trillion-gallons-of-water-on-texas-and-louisiana/



Just saying

Re: [Vo]:Sunspots, hurricanes and dense hydrogen

[Adrian Ashfield]

AXIL,
I think Svensmark was the dirt to come up with this theory and he made a good 
video describing it here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
(You can skip the first 2:20 of pretty pictures)

The source of hurricanes seems to be a combination of a cooler upper atmosphere 
and warmer sea surface.  The temperature difference drives the formation.  It's 
not just warmer water.


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 8, 2017 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sunspots, hurricanes and dense hydrogen



Reference:



Enhancement of cloud formation by droplet charging

rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/464/2098/2561.full.pdf




Shea & Smart (1995) also demonstrated ion production associated with a solar 
proton event in a surface ionization chamber, at Cheltenham, Maryland (398 N). 
This ionization was explained to be caused by muons, i.e. secondary particles 
generated from the solar protons. Other sources of high-energy particles in the 
lower atmosphere include thunderstorms (Wilson 1925; Lidvansky 2003), from 
which there is surface experimental evidence for accelerated electrons 
(Khaerdinov et al. 2005).



-


Increased cloud formation and electrification of the atmosphere could be an as 
yet unrecognized consequence of prolific use of LENR in petawatt level power 
production. It is a good bet that LENR produces muons as a primary format of 
nuclear energy reformulation. Heat generation is only a minor energy pathway. 


If LENR gains traction as a primary source for global energy production, the 
atmosphere could experience a massive increase in water droplet ionization and 
electrical charge amplification from LENR moderated muon creation. 


Muons from a LENR reactor can send very energetic muons high into the 
atmosphere where their interaction with water vapor is inevitable. This could 
result in a permanent  loss in global fair weather conditions in a permanently 
overcast world.  The deployed base of solar panel power production could be 
rendered ineffectual and the gloomy cloud shrouded earth could enter a new 
epoch of global cooling as little heat or light would penetrate to reach the 
ground.



On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


What most people don't know also is that the cosmic ray flux affects the 
weather.  Galactic cosmic rays are variable and depend in part on our solar 
system's orbital position in the spiral arm.  Cosmic rays variably affect the 
weather by penetration into the lower atmosphere, nucleating water droplets, 
and hence forming clouds.  The amount of cosmogenic cloud formation depends on 
the cosmic ray rate and average energy.  



Solar activity varies the solar magnetic field which changes the Earth's 
magnetic field, and hence the Earth's magnetic protection from cosmic rays.  Of 
course, greater solar activity also affects the rate of solar generated high 
energy particles which behave similarly to cosmic rays.


Increased cosmic ray/solar particle flux causes more clouds and causes a net 
cooling on the Earth.  Increased solar magnetic fields cause increased Earth's 
magnetic fields that shield from cosmic rays.  So, increased solar magnetic 
fields means less clouds on Earth and higher temperatures on the Earth.  


As I understand it, the link between solar magnetic fields, solar particle 
flux, cosmic ray flux, and clouds is not part of present climate models.




On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:16 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:


Periodically, the cross connection between abnormal solar activity and 
hurricanes is mentioned in the ALT-SCI press.
 
https://www.inverse.com/article/36183-solar-flare-hurricane-irma
 
Of course this year is no exception as the strongest storm in a decade and the 
strongest solar flares in the past 11 year cycle are aligned in time.
 
It is a complex interaction but there seems to be something beyond coincidence 
going on in this alignment. Often water temperature is said to play a role in 
hurricanes, but this year the Ocean water temperature in hurricane alley is 
normal
 
Perhaps the sunspot itself is not the driving force for more intense storms on 
earth but instead, the sunspot feeds a greater tonnage of dense hydrogen into 
the solar wind, and that dense hydrogen becomes the driving mechanism for the 
extra power of the storm.
 

Re: [Vo]:guaranteed pay

[Adrian Ashfield]

I have been writing about this for a couple of years.  See:  
http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20161205/letter-to-the-editor-real-change-is-needed-to-end-this-mess

 

 

 

[Vo]:Rossi building a commercial reactor

[Adrian Ashfield]

Andrea Rossi confirms that the E-Cat QX will be demonstrated late in October.  
Also that he has started building a commercial unit, (with an output of more 
than 1 MW?), where he will sell the heat output, not the reactor.

It looks like his plan is to gather operating experience and not sell E-Cats 
where they can be reverse engineered until had has built a fully automated line 
to mass produce them cheaply.

I know the skeptics will be jumping up and down to express their doubts but it 
is hard to see how Rossi can defraud anyone if he is just selling heat to a 
real customer.  Time will tel who is right.

Thanks to Frank Acland for eliciting this information.
http://e-catworld.com/2017/09/04/rossi-first-e-cat-plants-under-construction-will-sell-energy-not-plants/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds

[Adrian Ashfield]

AxilAxil,
Thanks for that.  Not enough people know about it.
It is even worse for reasons that you didn't mention.  These VC/private equity 
firms tend to sell off bits of an existing company to pay off the debt and then 
milk what remains until it dies.  There is a classic example written up in the 
book "Glass House."  This describes how Anchor Hocking was taken overt and 
driven into bankruptcy.  Even worse it destroyed the once charming city of 
Lancaster Ohio.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 31, 2017 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds



https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-myths-about-venture-capitalists




Myth 4: VCs Generate Spectacular Returns
Last year my colleagues at the Kauffman Foundation and I published a widely 
read report, “We Have Met the Enemy…and He Is Us,” about the venture capital 
industry and its returns. We found that the overall performance of the industry 
is poor. VC funds haven’t significantly outperformed the public markets since 
the late 1990s, and since 1997 less cash has been returned to VC investors than 
they have invested. A tiny group of top-performing firms do generate great 
“venture rates of return”: at least twice the capital invested, net of fees. We 
don’t know definitively which firms are in that group, because performance data 
are not generally available and are not consistently reported. The average 
fund, however, breaks even or loses money.
We analyzed the Kauffman Foundation’s experience investing in nearly 100 VC 
funds over 20 years. We found that only 20 of our funds outperformed the 
markets by the 3% to 5% annually that we expect to compensate us for the fees 
and illiquidity we incur by investing in private rather than public equity. 
Even worse, 62 of our 100 funds failed to beat the returns available from a 
small-cap public index.
Venture capital investments are generally perceived as high-risk and 
high-reward. The data in our report reveal that although investors in VC take 
on high fees, illiquidity, and risk, they rarely reap the reward of high 
returns. Entrepreneurs who are distressed when VCs decline to fund their 
ventures need only review the performance data to see that VCs as a group have 
no Midas touch for investing. 
Like IH, investors may commit to high risk and likely financial loss motivated 
by other factors than the profit motive, They may want to fund a project that 
will advance the state of the human condition. Such funding is more like a 
charitable donation. Such charitable funding is not associated with the concept 
of fraud. 





On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Rossi's imaginary company, J.M. Products, has folded its imaginary tent and 
vanished in the night:


http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170=domp-p1456117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75=JM%20Chemical%20products=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170



I have heard that Rossi is planning to go to Sweden to swindle his next group 
of marks.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:There's the rub ...

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jones Beene,
I wasn't thinking of the Hot Cat but more of the QuarkX variety.  True we have 
little data about it and really only know that it is 1.5cm long by 6 mm dia., 
that it runs at over 2000C and has a resistance similar to silver.  I think 
that means it is a plasma.

Contrary to some on this forum I think it exists and will be demonstrated in 
October with a believable calorimetry method.   Time will tell.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 25, 2017 10:28 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:There's the rub ...



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
 
The Mizuno and Rossi effects may only be second cousins, since D is used in one 
and H in the other.  
thought to be the ash in Mizuno’s and transmutation of Ni plus a little He the 
ash in Rossi’s.
 
From: Adrian Ashfield
 
Considering the Conservation of Miracles law, I wonder what the chances are 
that this is a kissing cousin to Rossi's E-Cat QX.  That he gets a higher COP 
due to the higher temperature he uses. 
 
 
 
Well, no scientist knows if Rossi has valid gain or not – but indeed, there is 
one striking similarity between the two which has not been emphasized 
adequately.
 
The interesting parallel between Mizuno’s latest design and the so-called 
hot-cat is that the reactor itself (in both cases) is heated externally via 
resistance heaters (inefficient) - but at the same time, excess heat is claimed 
to be measured far above the level of the input heat. That feature is 
counter-intuitive.
 
Mizuno uses a steel reactor held at much lower temperature and in a partial 
vacuum. Rossi (Parkhomov) uses ceramic but with embedded external heaters but 
provides no real calorimetry to bolster his claim. Mizuno notably adds high 
voltage internal electrodes (500 volts) but it is not clear if his design is 
really “glow discharge” or instead is “hot gas” like the hot-cat, or is a bit 
of both.  A characterization of “hot gas” would mean no real plasma, but 
instead hot hydrogen (or deuterium) in gas phase which is activated by a high 
temperature trigger and presumably enters into rapid cycling of 
absorption/desorption. 
 
Since there is no consistent low pressure ionized gas and no partial vacuum in 
any Rossi design it cannot be labeled as glow-discharge or even plasma-state. 
The similarity between the two derives from both having external resistance 
heating - which requires most of the electrical input - and both claiming that 
despite large power being used by the external heaters, there is net thermal 
gain. This claim cannot be substantiated by “thermometry” as Rossi would like 
to do.
 
Mizuno is able to make an arguably valid scientific argument for thermal gain 
by having an identical control reactor operating at identical parameters 
(except for the palladium surface coat). That kind of control makes his setup 
much more expensive to build – but importantly, much more convincing to believe.
 
Rossi offers no such duplicate control nor calorimetry, and Parkomov cannot 
repeat his former claim for gain, while at least 6 other similar hot-cat 
replications have failed to show any meaningful gain. In scientific terms, 
therefore, Rossi’s claim depends completely on his personal honesty. 
 
The big knock on Mizuno is that IH partially funded his work - and perhaps that 
is the key to the design similarity. Yet in court papers, IH states under oath 
that they witnessed no thermal gain - and apparently they visited Mizuno’s Lab 
in Japan months prior to the improvements mentioned at the end of the Mizuno 
paper. Was this simply bad timing?
 
Bottom line - when your own funder will not step up, then there’s the 
existential “to be or not to be” problem… 
 
….and “there’s the rub” so to speak. (apologies to WS) 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:There's the rub ...

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Considering the Conservation of Miracles law, I wonder what the chances are 
that this is a kissing cousin to Rossi's E-Cat QX.  That he gets a higher COP 
due to the higher temperature he uses.
It will be interesting to find out more in October.

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Adrian Ashfield]

I  agree Lennart.
Vortex is not the worst offender.  lenrforum.com is worse.  People there write 
hundreds of pages of insulting, unproven waffle/speculation.  Apart from Jed 
most are anonymous armchair critics who do nothing themselves but apparently 
can't stand the thought of someone actually doing what they can only dream 
about. Many are so arrogant they are certain they have all he answers when they 
don't.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 7:22 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'



I agree with Bob.
It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.   
Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true 
entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he 
settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He could 
have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by Money.
Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and that 
unortodox methods  can be used.
I hope his invention has a great value.
Lennart



On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com"  
wrote:


The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 
claque.
 
Bob Cook
 
 
 

From: Che
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 
 

This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.

 

 

Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority

 

 

The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

 

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.

 

 

Is that it, or close enuff..?

 

 

 
 

Re: [Vo]:Picking up the pieces

[Adrian Ashfield]

 


According to Abd... "All claims dropped on both sides. It is as if the 
suit was never filed.

 The IP and license are not mentioned. As Rossi was apparently pleased I deduce 
something has changed in the ownership of the IP or the multi country license.
As IH claimed the above were valueless it would be hard for them to object to 
them reverting to Rossi.  It was rumored that Rossi actually offered to buy 
them back earlier.
If either the E-Cat or QuarkX work, this would be worth more than the $89 
million.

I know you and others have made up your minds that Rossi never had anything 
that worked, but I find that conclusion premature.  If either work he may get 
the last laugh.



 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jones,
Having been involved with a number of manufacturing plants, including building 
several new ones, my impression was the time and labor required for the 
supposed heat exchanger were greatly exaggerated. 
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jul 1, 2017 10:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Looks like things are finally underway in Miami, barring a hurricane. 
July is bit early for one, but  there are already strong signs of a 
tropical depression, so to speak.

Interesting thread has turned up on LENR forum - which has been joined 
by a hand's-on expert, in fact he claims to be a pipe-fitter.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?pageNo=313

Rossiphiles will of course claim without any proof that this poster is 
being paid by friends of Darden to influence a jury. Doubt it (that 
would be very risky) ... but there is no doubt that the opinion of a 
professional pipe-fitter could determine where Rossi spends the next 5 
years, even if he wins a dollar verdict. AR really screwed up his 
deposition royally, and that will haunt him.

If Rossi has perjured himself during depositions in regard to the 
imaginary heat-exchanger removal, which many observers are absolutely 
certain that he has done, it will not be glossed over. That prior bit of 
dishonesty could be his downfall, even if he wins a verdict or 
back-tracks when he gives direct testimony... maybe he claims amnesia or 
CLD/HPD... (very little doubt that Rossi is afflicted with the latter 
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder).

But his attorney should have warned Rossi that depositions are sworn 
testimony too, and Federal Courts consider perjury to be more serious 
than Rossi may realize. Beware, Andrea and beware to his attorney also. 
"Subornation of perjury" is actually frowned on as much or more than the 
act itself. Most ironic if the two of them win millions but cannot enjoy 
it for several years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Well said.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jun 30, 2017 2:33 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden



Jed,
I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser 
wisser' attitude needs a comment.
You are saying the ERV report is proof of fraud. Well, that is using a very low 
level to qualify a proof. The truth is that you with some support of IH has 
made that conclusion and so maybe others also. I have not even read the report. 
It would mean nothing to me. Even if I think my knowledge of science exceeds 
junior high. Technical flaws can have many explanations. One is the one you 
hold as the obvious truth. 
In another logical shortcut you use vague indications from one of Rossi's 
competitors as evidence that Rossi is a fraudster. My guess is that the same 
competitor has negative indications about all the other players in the field. 
The above I mention as a background showing your ill-will or lack of positive 
thinking. You dismiss anyone else'es opinion as wishful thinking. I doubt you 
are a qualified judge of others opinion or conclusions.
I have no idea about to which degree Rossi has anything contributing to LENR or 
not. However, it will show. In the conflict with IH the outcome is not 
determined by facts regarding Rossi's contribution to LENR but by a legal 
system very few can understand or predict. Sure is that  IH has not handle the 
issues the way I would have expected from a serious investment company. Maybe 
they are smarter than I, maybe they have other ideas about what is fair and how 
to conduct business. Reality is that we are different.
You say that Rossi is hurting the possibilities for LENR funding in the future. 
I would say that his contribution to the renewed interest in LENR is evident. 
He has stirred up the interest more than any other player. Your idea that LENR 
will be discredited from a possible failure by Rossi to show a result is 
flawed. You are searching for critic against Rossi even without minimal logic 
involved. Due to Rossi's involvement we have many people doing experiments and 
that is positive. I personally believe that Rossi has at least ideas about how 
to make LENR work, possibly he has a solution. Let him reveal that. He has 
promised after the trial to show us. Rossi looks not as a fraudster to me. He 
act as a passionate entrepreneur in my opinion. It is required to be an 
optimist to get that kind of label. Sometimes the entrepreneurial spirit 
contains a teaspoon of wishful thinking as you call it. It can be labeled 
vision also.
Let us wait and see.
The ongoing trial will either:
- give Rossi money and ability to show that he is genuine.
- give  ability to IH to support other LENR ideas.
- change nothing and all parties can go ahead as they see fit.
My only question to you is why do you find it so beneficial to label people. As 
I see it you have no qualification in that field. Personally I think very few 
if any has that ability.
Lennart
 
 






Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros




lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899


Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)








On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Jones Beene  wrote:
 
Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything toa jury 
- other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon'sconclusion. 
These are average citizens who don't do data, so tospeak.




I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and juries, so 
I cannot judge.


 

A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95out of 
100 scientists might agree with you.



More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who agrees 
the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.


I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon report 
describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street. Obviously, 
as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have heard of the 
laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They are in thrall to 
him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to think rationally and do 
junior-high-school physics.


It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and then 
stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may have 
destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas Tech 
project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will be 
forgotten.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jones,
I had thought much the same thing.  If the ERV's report  is the deciding factor 
in the contract it will be difficult to put it aside.  Both sides paid/agreed 
on the man.

I also agree IH will appeal it for ever if they lose - and ultimately declare 
chapter 11 if they lose, rather than pay $89 million plus damages.
AA

Re: [Vo]:Income inequlity

[Adrian Ashfield]

Frank,
I have been writing about this for several years.  Read this, starting about a 
third way down.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/paul-craig-roberts/powerful-man-earth/

I think it was inevitable anyway as a result of AI and robotics, but offshoring 
made it happen earlier.
I hope the LENR, if it works out, will cushion the blow, but sooner or later we 
will need something like UBI  (Universal Basic Income.)  I don't see that 
happening with our present government until after there is blood on the streets.




 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 2:19 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Income inequlity


i have been watching the stock market.  It's on a tear on the way up.
28% returns for the first half of this year.  Wealthy investor are even doing 
been with private equity.


In the mean time all social programs are under the ax.


We are in the mist of one of the largest transfers of wealth from the poor to 
the rich in history.  How will this end?


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[Adrian Ashfield]

I don't think the Penon report proves it didn't work.  We will find out in 
court.  Why do you think it does?
What about the QuarkX?
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming




Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

 


Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't require 
proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.




The Penon report proves that the E-Cat does not work. I do not know about the 
other two. The Penon report is here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

As Harry pointed out, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and they have not 
produced much evidence for SunCell and Brillouin.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't require 
proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.  The fact is, 
nobody outside those groups really knows yet.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

Brian Ahern wrote:

 > After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in 
a repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can 
achieve 10 watts excess and a COP > 1.5

... and Bob Cook says I'm too cynical ...

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Me356 apparently had troubles with the test unit.  He claims that it normally 
starts in about ten minutes.
In the early part of the test the plot showed that it looked like it was on the 
way up in five minutes but then petered out.
MFMP ar taking a break tomorrow to giver me356 time to fix it and will run a 
final test on Monday.  He says it is the only unit he has that has a cover and 
he is not prepared to show one without.
AA


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

... It would be great if this could run for several days... in the best 
effort of P experiments in France, there was no excess for 60 days - 
followed by several months of gain.

-

One comment on the above in the context of today's lack of results, 
since there will be those who will want to defend me356 on not having 
adequate time to get it running, in light of the past history of LENR 
and the usual need of an adequate break-in period before gain is seen.

That lack of start-up delay is not relevant here. Those who have 
followed me356 posts closely say that he claimed to have powered his 
house with heat from the device all of last winter. Therefore, since he 
had it running for an extended period already, we have to assume he was 
well past the break-in delay of a new device.

There is still hope, of course, that he can get it running tomorrow...

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Thanks.  I see my earlier reply now, but it wasn't there earlier.  I have no 
idea why it was used out of context to start a new thread.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, May 26, 2017 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today




On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:


That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has 
not been published.



I saw your suggestion afterwards.  I think it somehow started a new thread 
rather than remaining in this one.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has 
not been published.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today



I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency 
components in the input power waveform.


Eric

Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Don;t know what all the fuss is about.  It easy enough to look at the signal 
with a good oscilloscope and see if there is likely to be a problem.
Seems to me the skeptics are busy looking for exotic ways to cheat so they can 
console themselves that it doesn't work even if me356's reactor actually does 
work.  Considering its ancestry I don't know know why Brian hasn't said it 
should be colored purple.
MFMP seem a competent bunch and short of seeing the actual test I have no 
reason to doubt their results. 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 3:39 pm
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today




I do not believe the Aura device is a plasma electrolysis system.  I believe it 
is a Ni-H system with a dry reactor that is electrically stimulated.  The water 
is from cooling of the reactor.  MFMP will be measuring wall plug power as the 
input to the Aura device with two different power analyzers.  The wall plug 
power should not be as hard to measure as plasma electrolysis input power.


I agree that there are serious issues with measuring the power of a plasma 
electrolysis system by measuring voltage and current.  With the bubbles popping 
up and instantly changing the cell voltage and current, it doesn't surprise me 
in the least that ultrasound and low RF signals are detected.


I also agree that measuring steam accurately is an issue.  However, measuring 
steam via heat exchanger or by sparging the steam is conservative - if anything 
it will report less energy than actually exists in the steam (with any 
entrained hot water).  Thus, the COP measured would be lower than the actual 
device is producing.




On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:


May I make a prediction?
When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma  electrolysis, the input 
is invariably under reported.
The plasma is actually a series of sporadic arcs. Measuring the I(t)  and V(t) 
simultaneously is impossible for all but the most sophisticated test equipment.
If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we face 
the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a COp 
around 6-8.

From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
 

Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test 
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running 
several months now.
 It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
  
See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-preparing-for-me356-testing/

[Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today

[Adrian Ashfield]

Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test 
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running 
several months now.
 It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
  
See 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-preparing-for-me356-testing/

Re: [Vo]:A Brief History of Tomorrow

[Adrian Ashfield]

Interesting food for thought.  I think there would be revolutions and much 
blood in the street before much of this happened.
I'm not as pessimistic as Harari who was of course just looking at the down 
side.  With a more intelligent government than we currently have life could 
improve for most of us.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, May 24, 2017 11:03 am
Subject: [Vo]:A Brief History of Tomorrow


http://www.ynharari.com/inequality-get-unimaginably-worse/

Re: [Vo]:Current size of QuarkX

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian,
Your thoughts are well known and unproven.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, May 23, 2017 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Current size of QuarkX



I cannot resist commenting. The size of the quarkX is not important. It is the 
color and texture. I think lavender with a herringbone pattern is optimal.  
That will allow them to match the emperor's new outfits.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Current size of QuarkX
 

Andrea Rossi replied today that the current size is 10 mm by 5 mm dia with a 
rated output of 20 W.

As they would have to be grouped to get sufficient power for most purposes I 
wonder if they are now stable and similar enough that many  units can be 
powered by a single power controller.

AA

[Vo]:Current size of QuarkX

[Adrian Ashfield]

Andrea Rossi replied today that the current size is 10 mm by 5 mm dia with a 
rated output of 20 W.

As they would have to be grouped to get sufficient power for most purposes I 
wonder if they are now stable and similar enough that many  units can be 
powered by a single power controller.

AA

Re: [Vo]:Sun cell reality

[Adrian Ashfield]

 


Mills could be little more than a Rossi with earned credentials, instead of 
store-bought. When will his 
investors wake up?


 Rossi has a perfectly good degree from Bologna University.  Why do you persist 
in repeating these ad hominems?

AA

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, May 21, 2017 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sun cell reality

Brian Ahern wrote:

 > I have long believed that Randall Mills has something. Thermacore 
demonstrated that back in 1994-1996.

 > Since that time Randy has not advanced the technology. He has never 
demonstrated the sun cell. In fact, it has never even been constructed. 
He refuses to do simple calorimetry to show real and useful heat output.

 > Like Rossi and Godes he resists the obvious demonstrations to 
establish the true operation.

Any careful observer has to agree. No data, no replication, no product - 
all talk and then comes the tin cup. Mills could be little more than a 
Rossi with earned credentials, instead of store-bought. When will his 
investors wake up?

BTW - This is far from the first time that RM has made undeliverable 
promises over the past few decades. Let's see:

1) Mills publicly promised a Capstone turbine powered by hydrinos in 6 
months. Result: never delivered, never explained. Millions raised.

2) Mills develops a clever "reverse gyrotron" which got a lot of 
attention. Result: never delivered, never explained. Millions raised.

3) Mills licensed several New Mexico Utilities to produce power using 
his "solid fuel" cell. Result: never delivered, never explained. 
Millions raised.

4) Mills announces a hydrino battery of incredible energy density. 
Result: never delivered, never explained. Millions raised.

5) Mills announces hydrino light source. Result: never delivered, never 
explained. Millions raised.

6) Mills announce a "10 MW power source." Result: never delivered, never 
explained. Millions raised.

7)  Mills announce a CIHT solid state power source. Result: never 
delivered, never explained. Millions raised

Looks like a well-worn M.O. does it not?

A rather ignominious pedigree for the SunCell... but of course, maybe he 
got it right this time...

[Vo]:waterlike polymer creates high-temperature ceramics

[Adrian Ashfield]

Sounds like a VERY useful new material.
Engineer patents waterlike polymer to create high-temperature ceramics
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-patents-waterlike-polymer-high-temperature-ceramics.html#nRlv

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Axil Axil,

Saying that a plasmon is a quasi particle of plasma oscillation is no more 
helpful than saying a phonon is a quantization of mechanical vibration.
As an engineer one cares more about the properties than the detailed 
explanation but as a scientist I need something more solid about .how it works 
than the above.  It seems to me that iti is basically just math with a name 
given to something that is not really understood.  Maybe that is just my 
ignorance.

Likewise, in the first paper you linked, I have no idea if the field shown 
around a nano particle subjected to a laser pulse is real or has been measured 
or is a mathematical speculation.  Let alone why or how that field is formed.   
I have no idea how one could look at what is happening inside a volume that is 
below the diffraction limit.

So, if the papers you link are correct I can understand that your theory makes 
sense, but I would like to see more experimental proof of the fundamentals 
before accepting it.

Thanks for your replies and the links. 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



Nanoparticles produce Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) which are the optical 
cavities that produce that magnetic fields that result in meson emission. Sorry 
if the line of connections is long, Here is how nanoparticles produce EMF 
amplification of light.



http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1657.pdf


Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale


Nanoplasmonics provide many types of EMF amplification mechanisms. One of the 
more difficult mechanisms to understand is how a pile of nano and micro 
particles greatly amplify EMF. The reference provided in this post shows how 
the topology in the way particles aggregate explain how EMF is concentrated 
through vortex formation. The reference defines an analogy between a vortex and 
a gear. Like a funnel, a large particle gathers the energy from a wave of EMF 
far larger than its diameter, In the case of the Rossi system, this type 
particle is the 5 micron nickel particle. 


https://vimeo.com/36691535





This large particle produces a relatively huge vortex. Other particles of 
various sizes accumulate around the nickel particle. Each of these particles 
produce a vortex proportional to the size of the particle. These vortexes fit 
together like gears where the large vortex provides a large amount of power, 
and the other smaller vortexes provide a gear train that speeds up the rotation 
rate of the smaller gears down the train. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkxXheV748U


Finally, the smallest vortexes associated with hydrogen crystals, spin at high 
rates of speed providing large EMF power amplification. 

The take away is that a large spread of particles sizes produced within an 
aggregation of particles generates the most powerful EMF amplification effects. 
This fact explaines why the “secret sauce” effect provides such a large EMF 
power amplification result. These alkali metal hydrides supply the 
intermediatly sized gears that allows the large nickel gears to transfer their 
vast store of energy with little loss to the smallest hydrogen based gears down 
a smoothly running vortex power transmission chain. 

I venture to say that there is randomness associated with this particle 
aggregation process that enables a sort of  natural selection where the most  
effective dust pile configurations provide the most EMF amplification. When 
there are an abundance of particles, the chances are good that some of these 
piles will be LENR capable. That is to say, when there are a large number of 
particles, the chances are good that some of their aggregates will produce EMF 
amplication great enough to catalyze nuclear effects.


There is also a certain lifetime associated with particle formation. Particle 
piles are constantly falling apart. These particle aggregates must be 
constantly rebuilt to maintain a sustained reaction rate.



The SunCell is an example of dusty plasma based LENR where silver vapor 
condenses into nanoparticles that produce the LERN reaction.





On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

Axil Axil,
Thanks for the interesting paper.  While it seems clear that small particles 
are formed in the vicinity of the gold nano particles, the mechanism does not 
appear to be understood.  If they are neutrons, as the authors think, why do 
you think they originate from the H rather than from the thorium salt in 
solution?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



An experiment based on this one t

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Axil Axil,
Thanks for the interesting paper.  While it seems clear that small particles 
are formed in the vicinity of the gold nano particles, the mechanism does not 
appear to be understood.  If they are neutrons, as the authors think, why do 
you think they originate from the H rather than from the thorium salt in 
solution?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



An experiment based on this one that has been already performed as follows:



Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in
the presence of Thorium aqua-ions
A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf


"The resulting average size of Au NPs as determined by Transmission Electron 
Microscopy lies between 10 and 20 nm."


The addition is to configure this experiment with two double concentric glass 
chambers with pure water and gold nanoparticles in the inner chamber and one 
with a thorium salt in solution in water filling the outer chamber but without 
any nanoparticles inside of it.


First test the two concentric chambers without nanoparticles added to the inner 
chamber. Expect to see no transmutation in either the inner or the outer 
chamber.


Next test the two concentric chambers with nanoparticles added to the inner 
chamber. Expect to see transmutation  results involving thorium in the outer 
chamber as was seen in the referenced experiment done by A.V. Simakin and G.A. 
Shafeev.


This will show that interaction between light and nanoparticles produce the 
LENR reaction and that the reaction is carried out at a distance by subatomic 
particles that can penetrate a glass wall.


Variations on the wall material: aluminum, iron, stainless steel, lead etc can 
be carried out if the laser beam enters the inner chamber from an open top of 
the inner chamber.


Next, a high voltage spark discharge can replace the laser light that is fired 
just above the top of the water level on the inner chamber. As a probe of the 
LENR reaction, expect to see transmutation results involving thorium in the 
outer chamber.










On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

Axil Axil,

Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields is too dense for me by an order of 
magnitude.  I subscribe to the theory that if one truly understands the 
situation they can explain it in relatively simple terms.

So what would you propose as a demonstration of LENR with a parameter that 
could be altered to prove your theory?



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



IMHO, Holmlid's recent experiments using  a fast high electric field to induce 
meson production has proved the theory.


This result shows that the SPP requires an electrostatic field stimulus to 
produce the super strong magnetism necessary to activate nucleon decay.



Also, the use of anisotropic magnets (SmCo5) to induce LENR shows that 
magnetism disrupts the gluon condensate inside the proton and neutron.


Even through there is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
synthetic monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and an anisotropic magnetic 
field formatted by a pertinent  magnet to support  monopole flux lines, the 
magnetic field produces the same effect.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a 
monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.



That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction. 


To refresh your memory, see


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


The details of what a strong monopole magnetic field does to the insides of the 
proton and neutron is yet to be determined.


I am trying to understand this: See


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0906083/pdf/25.pdf




Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields







On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

AXil Axil,

As usual you have come up with a very imaginative theory that sounds just as 
likely or unlikely as myriads of others.
My question is how can it be proved or falsified?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect




LENR in a nutshell

LENR is an optical based process where light is trapped in a waveform called a 
soliton. Think of this structure as Nano sized ball lightning. This ball of 
light can form in many ways: inside ultra-dense hydrogen, on the surface of 
rough metal surfaces, inside cracks in metal, on nanoparticles and 
microparticles, between nanoparticles, and in

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

a stream of helium atoms will emit neutrons when pulses are applied.

 Has this actually been confirmed?
 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 12:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



There is a large class of physicists working with chirped laser in the 
femto-second time frame. The pulses go through a NONLINEAR diffraction grating 
and the E-fields superimpose.
For example; a stream of helium atoms will emit neutrons when pulses are 
applied.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect
 

Brian Ahern,
The significance of your comment is not clear to me.  I thought you disagreed 
with Axil's theory, but this sounds like you now agree.







-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



Chirped laser pulses provide sufficient electric and magnetic fields that 
easily cause fission fusion and all decay products known. Holmlid uses laser 
pulses.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect
 

Axil Axil,

Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields is too dense for me by an order of 
magnitude.  I subscribe to the theory that if one truly understands the 
situation they can explain it in relatively simple terms.

So what would you propose as a demonstration of LENR with a parameter that 
could be altered to prove your theory?









-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



IMHO, Holmlid's recent experiments using  a fast high electric field to induce 
meson production has proved the theory.


This result shows that the SPP requires an electrostatic field stimulus to 
produce the super strong magnetism necessary to activate nucleon decay.



Also, the use of anisotropic magnets (SmCo5) to induce LENR shows that 
magnetism disrupts the gluon condensate inside the proton and neutron.


Even through there is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
synthetic monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and an anisotropic magnetic 
field formatted by a pertinent  magnet to support  monopole flux lines, the 
magnetic field produces the same effect.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a 
monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.



That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction. 


To refresh your memory, see


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


The details of what a strong monopole magnetic field does to the insides of the 
proton and neutron is yet to be determined.


I am trying to understand this: See


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0906083/pdf/25.pdf




Lattice QCD in strong magnetic flelds
www.slac.stanford.edu
Lattice QCD in strong magnetic flelds P.V.Buividovichab, M.N.Chernodubcdb x, 
E.V.Luschevskayab, M.I.Polikarpovb a JIPNR \Sosny", National Academy of 
Science, Krasin ...








Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields







On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Adrian Ashfield<a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

AXil Axil,

As usual you have come up with a very imaginative theory that sounds just as 
likely or unlikely as myriads of others.
My question is how can it be proved or falsified?







-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect




LENR in a nutshell

LENR is an optical based process where light is trapped in a waveform called a 
soliton. Think of this structure as Nano sized ball lightning. This ball of 
light can form in many ways: inside ultra-dense hydrogen, on the surface of 
rough metal surfaces, inside cracks in metal, on nanoparticles and 
microparticles, between nanoparticles, and in dusty plasma. But critically, 
this soliton is not active until it is triggered through the electrostatic 
effects of a stimulating emission. 

When this soliton first form, light rotates around inside the soliton and 
supports two degenerate propagating-wave modes: clockwise (CW) and 
counterclockwise (CCW) waves, manifesting the symmetry of this system. This 
counter rotation of the light negates any organization of the spin of the light 
from generating any meaningful magnetic effect. 

But when the symmetry of this counter rotating light is broken by this 
electrostatic stimulant, like a magnet all spin of the light ceases to 
interfere with each other and a newly organized super intense magnetic beam 
projects ou

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian Ahern,
The significance of your comment is not clear to me.  I thought you disagreed 
with Axil's theory, but this sounds like you now agree.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 28, 2017 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



Chirped laser pulses provide sufficient electric and magnetic fields that 
easily cause fission fusion and all decay products known. Holmlid uses laser 
pulses.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect
 

Axil Axil,

Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields is too dense for me by an order of 
magnitude.  I subscribe to the theory that if one truly understands the 
situation they can explain it in relatively simple terms.

So what would you propose as a demonstration of LENR with a parameter that 
could be altered to prove your theory?









-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



IMHO, Holmlid's recent experiments using  a fast high electric field to induce 
meson production has proved the theory.


This result shows that the SPP requires an electrostatic field stimulus to 
produce the super strong magnetism necessary to activate nucleon decay.



Also, the use of anisotropic magnets (SmCo5) to induce LENR shows that 
magnetism disrupts the gluon condensate inside the proton and neutron.


Even through there is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
synthetic monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and an anisotropic magnetic 
field formatted by a pertinent  magnet to support  monopole flux lines, the 
magnetic field produces the same effect.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a 
monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.



That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction. 


To refresh your memory, see


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


The details of what a strong monopole magnetic field does to the insides of the 
proton and neutron is yet to be determined.


I am trying to understand this: See


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0906083/pdf/25.pdf




Lattice QCD in strong magnetic flelds
www.slac.stanford.edu
Lattice QCD in strong magnetic flelds P.V.Buividovichab, M.N.Chernodubcdb x, 
E.V.Luschevskayab, M.I.Polikarpovb a JIPNR \Sosny", National Academy of 
Science, Krasin ...








Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields







On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Adrian Ashfield<a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

AXil Axil,

As usual you have come up with a very imaginative theory that sounds just as 
likely or unlikely as myriads of others.
My question is how can it be proved or falsified?







-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect




LENR in a nutshell

LENR is an optical based process where light is trapped in a waveform called a 
soliton. Think of this structure as Nano sized ball lightning. This ball of 
light can form in many ways: inside ultra-dense hydrogen, on the surface of 
rough metal surfaces, inside cracks in metal, on nanoparticles and 
microparticles, between nanoparticles, and in dusty plasma. But critically, 
this soliton is not active until it is triggered through the electrostatic 
effects of a stimulating emission. 

When this soliton first form, light rotates around inside the soliton and 
supports two degenerate propagating-wave modes: clockwise (CW) and 
counterclockwise (CCW) waves, manifesting the symmetry of this system. This 
counter rotation of the light negates any organization of the spin of the light 
from generating any meaningful magnetic effect. 

But when the symmetry of this counter rotating light is broken by this 
electrostatic stimulant, like a magnet all spin of the light ceases to 
interfere with each other and a newly organized super intense magnetic beam 
projects out of the soliton in an highly organized mode. The soliton then 
becomes a synthetic analog monopole quasiparticle. 

When this beam of magnetism enters inside protons and neutrons that move into 
its path, the quarks that make up these protons and neutrons change their 
type(color) and the protons and neutrons transform into exotic mesons made up 
of strange and beauty quark types. Energy is also produced in these subatomic 
particle decays and is feed back into the solitons of light thereby increasing 
their intensity. In this way, this infusion of incoming subatomic energy allows 
the soliton to survive for an extended period in a self-sustaining mode while 
the electrostatic stimulant continues to maintain the o

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Axil Axil,

Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields is too dense for me by an order of 
magnitude.  I subscribe to the theory that if one truly understands the 
situation they can explain it in relatively simple terms.

So what would you propose as a demonstration of LENR with a parameter that 
could be altered to prove your theory?



 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



IMHO, Holmlid's recent experiments using  a fast high electric field to induce 
meson production has proved the theory.


This result shows that the SPP requires an electrostatic field stimulus to 
produce the super strong magnetism necessary to activate nucleon decay.



Also, the use of anisotropic magnets (SmCo5) to induce LENR shows that 
magnetism disrupts the gluon condensate inside the proton and neutron.


Even through there is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
synthetic monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and an anisotropic magnetic 
field formatted by a pertinent  magnet to support  monopole flux lines, the 
magnetic field produces the same effect.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a 
monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.



That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction. 


To refresh your memory, see


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


The details of what a strong monopole magnetic field does to the insides of the 
proton and neutron is yet to be determined.


I am trying to understand this: See


http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0906083/pdf/25.pdf




Lattice QCD in strong magnetic Fields







On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

AXil Axil,

As usual you have come up with a very imaginative theory that sounds just as 
likely or unlikely as myriads of others.
My question is how can it be proved or falsified?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect




LENR in a nutshell

LENR is an optical based process where light is trapped in a waveform called a 
soliton. Think of this structure as Nano sized ball lightning. This ball of 
light can form in many ways: inside ultra-dense hydrogen, on the surface of 
rough metal surfaces, inside cracks in metal, on nanoparticles and 
microparticles, between nanoparticles, and in dusty plasma. But critically, 
this soliton is not active until it is triggered through the electrostatic 
effects of a stimulating emission. 

When this soliton first form, light rotates around inside the soliton and 
supports two degenerate propagating-wave modes: clockwise (CW) and 
counterclockwise (CCW) waves, manifesting the symmetry of this system. This 
counter rotation of the light negates any organization of the spin of the light 
from generating any meaningful magnetic effect. 

But when the symmetry of this counter rotating light is broken by this 
electrostatic stimulant, like a magnet all spin of the light ceases to 
interfere with each other and a newly organized super intense magnetic beam 
projects out of the soliton in an highly organized mode. The soliton then 
becomes a synthetic analog monopole quasiparticle. 

When this beam of magnetism enters inside protons and neutrons that move into 
its path, the quarks that make up these protons and neutrons change their 
type(color) and the protons and neutrons transform into exotic mesons made up 
of strange and beauty quark types. Energy is also produced in these subatomic 
particle decays and is feed back into the solitons of light thereby increasing 
their intensity. In this way, this infusion of incoming subatomic energy allows 
the soliton to survive for an extended period in a self-sustaining mode while 
the electrostatic stimulant continues to maintain the organization of the 
photonic spin. 

Leif Holmlid has been using a laser pulse as the stimulator but yesterday 
Sveinn Olafsson just told me this: “Leif has applied fast high electric field 
and sees meson signal”



On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:


A post that might hold some insights as follows:



Giuseppe April 23, 2017 at 3:37 PM
Dear Andrea,

seems that to activate the E-Cat you need heat, does the QuarkX need heat to be 
activated?

Best regards, Giuseppe

Andrea Rossi April 23, 2017 at 3:48 PM
Giuseppe:

Not exactly. The mechanism is much more complex and is based on electromagnetic 
fields.

Warm Regards,

A.R.


The nature of the LENR reaction has evolved when the gas envelope is in the 
plasma state to depend solely on optical mechanisms. An EMF trigger is the 
factor can gets the LENR reaction going. not 

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[Adrian Ashfield]

Uber is more than fly-curious about taking ridesharing to the air. The company 
announced Tuesday that it plans to roll out a network of flying cars in 
Dallas-Fort Worth and, of course, Dubai by 2020.  Wired.

 

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

AXil Axil,

As usual you have come up with a very imaginative theory that sounds just as 
likely or unlikely as myriads of others.
My question is how can it be proved or falsified?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



LENR in a nutshell

LENR is an optical based process where light is trapped in a waveform called a 
soliton. Think of this structure as Nano sized ball lightning. This ball of 
light can form in many ways: inside ultra-dense hydrogen, on the surface of 
rough metal surfaces, inside cracks in metal, on nanoparticles and 
microparticles, between nanoparticles, and in dusty plasma. But critically, 
this soliton is not active until it is triggered through the electrostatic 
effects of a stimulating emission. 

When this soliton first form, light rotates around inside the soliton and 
supports two degenerate propagating-wave modes: clockwise (CW) and 
counterclockwise (CCW) waves, manifesting the symmetry of this system. This 
counter rotation of the light negates any organization of the spin of the light 
from generating any meaningful magnetic effect. 

But when the symmetry of this counter rotating light is broken by this 
electrostatic stimulant, like a magnet all spin of the light ceases to 
interfere with each other and a newly organized super intense magnetic beam 
projects out of the soliton in an highly organized mode. The soliton then 
becomes a synthetic analog monopole quasiparticle. 

When this beam of magnetism enters inside protons and neutrons that move into 
its path, the quarks that make up these protons and neutrons change their 
type(color) and the protons and neutrons transform into exotic mesons made up 
of strange and beauty quark types. Energy is also produced in these subatomic 
particle decays and is feed back into the solitons of light thereby increasing 
their intensity. In this way, this infusion of incoming subatomic energy allows 
the soliton to survive for an extended period in a self-sustaining mode while 
the electrostatic stimulant continues to maintain the organization of the 
photonic spin. 

Leif Holmlid has been using a laser pulse as the stimulator but yesterday 
Sveinn Olafsson just told me this: “Leif has applied fast high electric field 
and sees meson signal”



On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


A post that might hold some insights as follows:



Giuseppe April 23, 2017 at 3:37 PM
Dear Andrea,

seems that to activate the E-Cat you need heat, does the QuarkX need heat to be 
activated?

Best regards, Giuseppe

Andrea Rossi April 23, 2017 at 3:48 PM
Giuseppe:

Not exactly. The mechanism is much more complex and is based on electromagnetic 
fields.

Warm Regards,

A.R.


The nature of the LENR reaction has evolved when the gas envelope is in the 
plasma state to depend solely on optical mechanisms. An EMF trigger is the 
factor can gets the LENR reaction going. not heat. As stated in the Rossi 
patent, very high voltage electrostatic potential is that trigger. The name of 
the triggering effect is "kerr effect". The minimum voltage at which the kerr 
effect is triggered is 30,000 volts.


This trigger applies to both Rossi's low temperature reactions and his plasma 
based reactions.


Kerr electro-optic effect

The Kerr electro-optic effect, or DC Kerr effect, is the special case in which 
a slowly varying external electric field is applied by, for instance, a voltage 
on electrodes across the sample material. Under this influence, the sample 
becomes birefringent, with different indices of refraction for light polarized 
parallel to or perpendicular to the applied field. The difference in index of 
refraction is controlled by the strength of the applied electric field.





Birefringence modifies how light behaves inside a whispering gallery wave.



Birefringence is the optical property of a material having a refractive index 
that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light. These 
optically anisotropic materials are said to be birefringent (or birefractive). 
The birefringence is often quantified as the maximum difference between 
refractive indices exhibited by the material. Crystals with non-cubic crystal 
structures are often birefringent, as are plastics under mechanical stress.



The kerr effect produces a change in stated of the optical properties that 
underpin the LENR reaction. Research should be directed at finding where that 
change of state sets in.


As in Holmlid's experiments, a laser can produce the kerr effect


Optical Kerr effect

The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric 
field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of 
refraction which is proportional to the local irradiance of the light. This 
refractive index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical 

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

 


He has duped a cadre of gullable and hopeful folks from the LENR community.



 So Sergio Focardi ,  Guiseppe Levi, Sven Kullander, Hanno Essen, Roland 
Pettersson
Alexander Parkhomov, Fulvio Fabiani, all of whom claim to have witnessed the 
E-Cat working, are gullible idiots but you know better?
 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect





I have been a dedicated foe of the Rossi Planet since February 2009. I 
interacted with his cohorts in New Hampshire. Even they had no idea what he was 
doing, because the first 11 'independent tests
\' all broke down and were indeterminate.


Eight years later nothing has changed. He has duped a cadre of gullable and 
hopeful folks from the LENR community. With any luck he will be incarcerated 
for fraud and tax evasion. 


From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect
 

Brian Ahern,
The proof that Rossi's E-cats don't work is less than that they do.
It serves no useful purpose to continually repeat your insults with no actual 
content.
I wonder what you will say if Rossi comes up with a decent demo this Summer.







-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



One consideration that I feel is important to understand is what PT symmetry 
violation means with respect to CP symmetry violation. We understand that we 
can produce PT symmetry breaking using optical mechanisms but can PT symmetry 
violation somehow generate CP violation which is required to produce the decay 
of the nucleon (protons and neutrons)?  



>From the various descriptions of symmetry in this article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf



Space time (PT) Symmetry is only valid in an open system where energy and/or 
matter can be gained or lost. In a closed system, PT symmetry does not exist 
since a closed system can neither gain nor lose energy and/or matter. Because 
LENR requires CP symmetry breaking and CP symmetry breaking requires PT 
symmetry breaking, LENR can only occur in an open system.



Open vs. Closed Systems



Systems can be either open or closed. A closed system is one where a quantity 
or series of quantities cannot enter or leave the system. For example, a system 
might be closed to energy, meaning energy might not be able to enter or leave 
the system. A vacuum thermos flask does a really good job of stopping energy 
from leaving the system to keep your drink warm. So it might make sense to 
treat it as a closed system - but no system in the real world is ever perfectly 
closed, so it will only be an approximation.



The opposite of a closed system is an open system. An open system is one where 
a quantity or series of quantities can enter or leave the system to a 
significant degree. If you pour your hot drink into a mug instead of a vacuum 
thermos flask, the heat will escape relatively quickly into its surroundings. 
So a mug is most certainly an open system! Open systems are a lot more 
complicated to understand than closed systems, and so scientists prefer to work 
with closed systems when possible. Science usually stays away from open systems 
because closed systems makes things much simpler to explain and can be a good 
starting point before trying to explain open systems, too. Quantum mechanics 
only deals with closed systems.



Traveling backward in time.


If you make a movie of yourself throwing a ball, and thread the film backwards, 
it'll look the same as you catching a ball. So if you want to think of the 
falling object as being the same as the rising one going backwards in time, the 
physics will support that statement, but it doesn't sound all that cool.  It 
is, however, the same thing as antimatter being viewed as going backwards in 
time.



At the most basic level, the laws of physics are symmetrical: reverse time and 
they will follow the same route in reverse.  Reverse the charge, and things 
will be attracted where they would have repulsed, and vice versa.  Flip them 
both, and you've flipped it twice, so it's just like you started.  



Since a positron is exactly like an electron, only with the opposite charge, 
then if you (a) replace an electron with a positron, and (b) reverse time, it 
behaves exactly like an electron.  The physicists call this Charge/Parity (CP) 
symmetry, where "parity" is actually more like looking at things in a mirror 
rather than flipping time, but it's the same idea.



Flipping time is another way of looking at flipping left and right: a 
left-moving object going forwards in time is just like a right-moving object 
moving backwards.
  
An electron like a ball sitting in the same

Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian Ahern,
The proof that Rossi's E-cats don't work is less than that they do.
It serves no useful purpose to continually repeat your insults with no actual 
content.
I wonder what you will say if Rossi comes up with a decent demo this Summer.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kerr effect



One consideration that I feel is important to understand is what PT symmetry 
violation means with respect to CP symmetry violation. We understand that we 
can produce PT symmetry breaking using optical mechanisms but can PT symmetry 
violation somehow generate CP violation which is required to produce the decay 
of the nucleon (protons and neutrons)?  



>From the various descriptions of symmetry in this article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf



Space time (PT) Symmetry is only valid in an open system where energy and/or 
matter can be gained or lost. In a closed system, PT symmetry does not exist 
since a closed system can neither gain nor lose energy and/or matter. Because 
LENR requires CP symmetry breaking and CP symmetry breaking requires PT 
symmetry breaking, LENR can only occur in an open system.



Open vs. Closed Systems



Systems can be either open or closed. A closed system is one where a quantity 
or series of quantities cannot enter or leave the system. For example, a system 
might be closed to energy, meaning energy might not be able to enter or leave 
the system. A vacuum thermos flask does a really good job of stopping energy 
from leaving the system to keep your drink warm. So it might make sense to 
treat it as a closed system - but no system in the real world is ever perfectly 
closed, so it will only be an approximation.



The opposite of a closed system is an open system. An open system is one where 
a quantity or series of quantities can enter or leave the system to a 
significant degree. If you pour your hot drink into a mug instead of a vacuum 
thermos flask, the heat will escape relatively quickly into its surroundings. 
So a mug is most certainly an open system! Open systems are a lot more 
complicated to understand than closed systems, and so scientists prefer to work 
with closed systems when possible. Science usually stays away from open systems 
because closed systems makes things much simpler to explain and can be a good 
starting point before trying to explain open systems, too. Quantum mechanics 
only deals with closed systems.



Traveling backward in time.


If you make a movie of yourself throwing a ball, and thread the film backwards, 
it'll look the same as you catching a ball. So if you want to think of the 
falling object as being the same as the rising one going backwards in time, the 
physics will support that statement, but it doesn't sound all that cool.  It 
is, however, the same thing as antimatter being viewed as going backwards in 
time.



At the most basic level, the laws of physics are symmetrical: reverse time and 
they will follow the same route in reverse.  Reverse the charge, and things 
will be attracted where they would have repulsed, and vice versa.  Flip them 
both, and you've flipped it twice, so it's just like you started.  



Since a positron is exactly like an electron, only with the opposite charge, 
then if you (a) replace an electron with a positron, and (b) reverse time, it 
behaves exactly like an electron.  The physicists call this Charge/Parity (CP) 
symmetry, where "parity" is actually more like looking at things in a mirror 
rather than flipping time, but it's the same idea.



Flipping time is another way of looking at flipping left and right: a 
left-moving object going forwards in time is just like a right-moving object 
moving backwards.
  
An electron like a ball sitting in the same spot is a closed system. It cannot 
change into a positron because it is not moving. The motionless ball is a 
closed system which cannot experience CP symmetry breaking. A moving ball is an 
open system where its motion can be deemed to have CP symmetry.



So in an open system that has experienced PT symmetry breaking, LENR occurs 
because the nucleon undergoes CP symmetry breaking since in this case PT = CP. 


In optics, there are special conditions involving optical cavities that can 
experience PT summitry breaking. These cavities can reach out magnetically and 
become entangled with nucleons via their magnetic projections. This phenomenon 
is known as the chiral magnetic effect(1) — “chiral” means “distinguishing left 
from right, When PT symmetry is broken in these entangled open systems of 
optical cavities and nucleons decay via CP symmetry breaking. The energy of the 
nucleon decay flows one way into the optical cavity.  


It seems to me that it is central to the understanding of LENR to appreciate 
the mechanisms of symmetry breaking with regards to nucleons.  



1 - 

Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[Adrian Ashfield]

 For sure it will require some good regulations that would, but won't. be 
better made by engineers.
Imagine your typical Philly car driver in the air! The other problem is 
noise.

AA

 

 

-Original Message-
From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:34 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


I would love to have a flying car, especially when within the DC area.  My 
major concern is that we have far too many lawyers ready to sue any new 
technology offering.  Don't you think that some form of immunity to 
unreasonable lawsuits might be required for any small to mid sized companies 
that hope to enter the field?  Otherwise they will go the way of diving boards.

Dave 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
Subject: [Vo]:flying cars on the horizon


It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA

[Vo]:flying cars on the horizon

[Adrian Ashfield]

It seems that a flying car is getting close to being commercial.
Companies trying to make one include:.
Terrafugia
Kitty Hawk
Airbus Group
Moller International
Xplorair
PAL-V
Joby Aviation
EHang
Volocopter
Uber
Haynes Aero
Samson Motorworks
AeroMobil
Parajet
Lilium

Inherently inefficient , I doubt they will be very practical without either an 
improvement in battery technology or a small LENR power source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html

AA