Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine

[Eric Walker]

But I realize now you probably meant there are no neutral muons, rather
than that there are no neutral leptons.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM  wrote:
>
> Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean
>> neutral
>> pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life).
>>
>
> Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM  wrote:

Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean
> neutral
> pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life).
>

Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

[Eric Walker]

Thank you, Jones.  That's an interesting account.  It's always frustrating
when replications are attempted only half-heartedly and without attention
to detail or followup.  Have you considered writing up a protocol for the
pitchblend experiment?

Eric


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:59 PM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>
> *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> I'm curious whether any of those replications have been outside of the
> LENR field.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Several years ago, not long after the P announcement - this was a hot
> topic on various forums. I participated in one replication attempt, since
> at the time I had a working Tesla coil (Ouidin coil)  setup which was an
> ideal vehicle to demonstrate the effect as it is more of a bipolar
> resonator giving a large swing in alternating HV potential across a sample.
>
>
>
> We were able to show two orders of magnitude increase in the rate at which
> pitchblende decayed … but that rate gain attenuated after several days.
> This generated some interest at Cal (Berkeley).
>
>
>
> The PhDs who ostensibly tried a replication experiment of the Barker
> patent (for unknown reasons)  proceeded with a setup which was completely
> inadequate and (as expected) showed a null result. This null result
> squelched any further interest in our funders.
>
>
>
> Sadly the geniuses at Cal missed two  important details – which are that
> the effect works best (or only) on minerals (especially oxides of U and Th)
> and almost never works on a pure metal isotope like Californium IIRC  and
> second that the electric field must be arranged to have an extreme
> variation - such that the sample sees alternating voltage polarity over its
> surface and not a purely static field. As I recall, the details are
> explained in the patent. Researchers often hate to work with minerals since
> there is so much variability in composition... but still…
>
>
>
> An effect which is stated not to work with metals is doomed from the start
> - if you use a metal. Anyway – everyone seemed to move to LENR after this
> and it was mostly forgotten.
>
>
>
> The main reason that even a large increase in the decay rate of a mineral
> like pitchblende cannot be easily commercialized is that even at a factor
> of 100 improvement, the half-life may drop from several billion years to
> several tens of million years, but still far from breakeven, considering
> the power put into the HV input. Even so, it is probably something that
> should have been continued.
>
>
>
> I see the assignee is Altran Corporation which may still have an interest
> but it may not be the well-known Altran.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Two so far.
>

Perhaps you're referring in part to the Simakin and Shafeev paper, which
you've called attention to before?

https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4268

This paper, of course, deals with laser irradiation, while the Barker
patent discusses application of a high voltage using a Van de Graaff
generator.  What are the two replications you're thinking of?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Purcell Effect

[Eric Walker]

Jones,

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 4:30 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:


> There is also the Barker effect.
>
>
>
> This is an altered radioactive decay rate due to high static voltage.
>
>
>
> The patent is here. It has been widely replicated but has found no
> commercial niche.
>
>
I'm curious whether any of those replications have been outside of the LENR
field.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational
influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a
question of my own.  The conclusion that classical beams of light bend
spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do.
(Do individual photons bend light?  Probably, but to be determined.)  How
much does light bend gravity?  In an answer to my question about the
annihilation photons and the black hole, assuming there is no firewall, one
respected member of the forum appears to agree with me that they have the
same affect on gravity as the masses of the electron and positron prior to
entering the black hole.

We are left to wonder whether Mills in his boundless and admirable ambition
has set out to revise not only quantum mechanics but general relativity as
well.

Eric



My question about the black hole:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-positron-annihilation-and-gravitation.938873/

Posts about photons, light and gravity:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-gravity.349196/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-and-mass.122636/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-gravity-of-photons.381246/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photons-and-gravity.494216/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-gravitons-interact-with-photons.473684/

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM,  wrote:

When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to
> be as
> many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark
> energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first
> impression.
>

Your eyes do not see the radio, infrared or microwave backgrounds, nor the
high-energy gamma rays that are present. :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Horrible spelling on my part:  how about "that have led astrophysicists...".

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational
>> mass,
>> or that particles never enter a black hole. :)
>>
>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very
> delocalized way.  Would there be enough of this mass to account for the
> experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for
> dark matter?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM,  wrote:

So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational
> mass,
> or that particles never enter a black hole. :)
>

Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very
delocalized way.  Would there be enough of this mass to account for the
experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for
dark matter?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM,  wrote:

2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron
> "escapes" -
> don't ask me how that's supposed to happen.
>

I think we're thinking of different scenarios.  In the one I'm describing,
the electron and positron both enter the black whole at around the same
time and location and then annihilate on the other side of the horizon.  In
other words, they travel together prior to annihilating.  It is the
annihilation photons that escape (when the pair annihilate on the outside)
or don't escape (when the pair annihilate on the inside).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM,  wrote:

2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the
> gravity
> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in
> the
> process.)
>

I did not appreciate this point.  Let's go with your option (2) and assume
that matter (e.g., electrons and positrons) can cross the event horizon and
annihilate.  I believe this can be adjusted to happen on a timeline that is
contemporaneous with our own by moving the electron and positron
arbitrarily closer to one another prior to crossing the event horizon.  In
this scenario, I am unsure how the photons will completely redshift in our
own timeline, as this will be a gradual process which will presumably take
an infinite amount of time to complete from our perspective.  During that
time they will not have fully been drained of energy (assuming this is a
thing).

Here is where I start to get stumped.  I would imagine that unlike
electromagnetic radiation, gravitational influence does not follow the
(gravitationally warped) curvature of spacetime.  Otherwise we'd have the
paradoxical situation of gravity bending in on itself because there is so
much mass.  So I assume the resultant loss in gravitational attraction
traveling outwards at the speed of light from where the electron and
positron annihilated will escape the black hole within a period of time
that we can observe it.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the
> head of a
> pin?". :)
>

My apologies for being argumentative. :)  You attempted to rule out the
electron-positron thought experiment on the basis of a claim about the
event horizon that has the status of a conjecture.  I will acknowledge that
black holes are not very friendly things to reason about in the context of
a thought experiment, and so it is not that insightful.


> E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event
> horizon,
> we won't detect it either way.
> 1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future.
>

I think we've established that this is one of several possibilities. :)


> 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the
> gravity
> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in
> the
> process.)
>

To return to gist of the thought experiment:  it seems to me that there's
something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron,
gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and thereby
exerting additional gravitational pull on its surroundings, and then losing
1.022 MeV at a later point in (our) time should the two collide (according
to one school of thought about black holes), exerting afterwards less
gravitational pull on its surroundings, when nothing has escaped the black
box of the system.

I will concede that this thought experiment will not be very interesting
for someone who believes that matter does not make it beyond the event
horizon. :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM,  wrote:

It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon
> from
> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe
> comes to
> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing
> in a
> black hole.)
>

You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there
are other possibilities [1]:

The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself
> arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be
> emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information
> about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In
> 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic
> assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent.


Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted
> the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen
> when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that
> the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would
> indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a
> "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather
> surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon
> of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold
> and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon.


The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be
drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in
contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over
the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting
happens.  I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event
horizon.  But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything
approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to
have observable effects:

"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by
> it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says
> Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University.


So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and
positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely
suggestive but not conclusive.

Eric


[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM,  wrote:

Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get
> to see
> what happens.
> Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to
> an
> end before they get together.
>

That was a question for me:  for us the electron-positron pair appear to be
frozen in time for us because light is bending back in on the black hole.
Does that mean that whatever happens inside the event horizon is never
contemporaneous with us?  My sense was that this is not the case, and that
it's just a trick of the light not escaping.

If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to
things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to
talk about its contents.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:45 PM,  wrote:

Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon
> is
> approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least
> nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time
> actually
> stands still at the event horizon).
>

I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no
return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not
escape the black hole.  In this understanding, time slows down
asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running
(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon.

To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the
electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate.
(Unless I'm mistaken.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:

This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a
> distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just
> going
> "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is
> traversing.
>

Another thought experiment for anyone bothered by the assumption of a loss
of gravitational attraction in the conversion of matter/antimatter into
photons:

You have an electron-positron pair that annihilate in two different
scenarios, creating 511 keV annihilation photons.  In the first scenario,
they are attracted towards a black hole and annihilate outside of the event
horizon.  The boundary that includes the black hole and the pair of
escaping photons now has less mass and hence less gravitational pull (by
assumption).  Now let the electron and positron stray over the event
horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1.  At t=0, the black hole now
has M + 1.022 MeV mass.  At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous
mass of M, even though an electron and positron have been added to it, and
even though the annihilation photons have not escaped.

One of the things that is bothering me about the second scenario is that
there probably is no baryonic matter in the black hole to begin with, so it
feels arbitrary to distinguish between the captured annihilation photons
and whatever else is there.  (What if it's all photons?)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM,  wrote:

.. go right ahead. :)
>

It will take a while.  :)  But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat
analogy with a more apt one.  One description of gravitational attraction
is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass.  It is similar
in that regard to magnetism or Coulomb attraction. Place a magnet on a
table and a piece of ferromagnetic metal near to it, and they will both
slide towards one another if their masses are on the same order. (If the
masses are not on the same order, this will still happen but just not be
readily perceived.)

The situation of a photon being attracted to a massive object without the
massive object being attracted (pulled) in the direction of the photon is
like that of a magnet that pulls on a ferromagnetic object without the
object pulling the magnet towards it as well.  The magnet would stay in
place on the table, undisturbed, while only the ferromagnetic object slides
towards the magnet.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM,  wrote:

...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space.
>

The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way
of understanding in this instance.  It is equivalent to the gravitational
influence of two or more bodies on one another.  Having a massive body be
able to tug on a photon, while the photon does not tug on the massive body
in the opposite direction, reminds me vaguely of a description of a rowboat
with oars, where the rower is somehow able to use the oars to push the boat
forward, while the water is not pushed in the opposite direction.

I suspect that if one ponders the suggestion of light not having
"gravitational mass" long enough, it should be possible to come up with an
experiment that will demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM,  wrote:

Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the
> universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass.


Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by
gravity (e.g., gravitational lensing, the Schwarzschild radius of a black
hole), but not having a reciprocal influence in return.

Eric

[Vo]:Boston Dynamics's latest iteration

[Eric Walker]

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I=youtu.be

Eric

[Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage

[Eric Walker]

Here is an article that provides an interesting summary of different
approaches to storying energy:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/a-world-tour-of-some-of-the-biggest-energy-storage-schemes/

One of the drawbacks of existing green energy sources is that they do not
necessarily produce energy during convenient hours.  These energy storage
mechanisms are intended to help out with that.

I had forgotten about pumped storage — pumping water uphill from one
reservoir to another.  The pumped storage stations in the article can
deliver orders of magnitude greater power than the alternatives, and they
presumably have a lot more storage capacity as well.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

The photon cannot be stretched out too far, or an atom would be unable to
> absorb its energy in an acceptable time.
>

I think this would be the case if the usual four dimensions were involved.
If a further dimension came into play, it is possible to imagine the
surface of the expanding wave having a large (and possibly increasing)
area, while the energy of the photon is transmitted at a specific,
point-like location.

We already see evidence of photons of different energies having different
cross-sectional areas to their wavefronts.  High energy gamma rays interact
with nucleons or even constituents of nucleons, but not atoms as a whole.
Lower energy gamma rays interact with an entire nucleus but not individual
nucleons.  Yet lower energy photons interact with and eject electrons from
atomic orbitals but are transparent to nucleuses and nucleons.  Photons at
even lower energies are transparent to atoms but interact with antennas and
other macroscopic bodies.  In this sense there is an ever-expanding area of
interaction as the photon energy decreases, and vice versa as the energy
increases.

The limiting case are perhaps the photons involved in extremely low
frequency (ELF) radio waves [1].  Frequencies in the 3 Hz range correspond
to wavelengths of 100,000 km.  In my mind that entails a very large area
wavefront.  I doubt there is a point-like photon involved in this case.

Eric

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Assume with Hotson that there is a negative energy sea with negative energy
> charges.  I wonder whether, contrary to Hotson's wishes, a positive mass
> would nevertheless fall out of general relativity for such negative energy
> charges. Even weirder would be a negative mass.  The weirdest of all,
> though, would be *no* mass.
>

If E = mc^2 is to remain an invariant, it would seem that Hotson must
either agree to negative mass:

(-E) = (-m)c^2,

or have another trick up his sleeve.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Some have postulated that the photon is a soliton solution because such a
> solution can be constrained in size and would not naturally spread out in
> propagation.
>

I wonder about this assumption about photons not spreading out.  Perhaps
the spreading out is very gradual and occurs over unfathomably large
distances.  That might provide the basis for an alternative explanation to
the Hubble constant and the redshift.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Pondering epos and implications to the ether

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Hotson says that only positive energy charges have mass and the epos are
> part of the negative energy sea.
>

Assume with Hotson that there is a negative energy sea with negative energy
charges.  I wonder whether, contrary to Hotson's wishes, a positive mass
would nevertheless fall out of general relativity for such negative energy
charges. Even weirder would be a negative mass.  The weirdest of all,
though, would be *no* mass.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Continued investigation of the EM-drive may be the crack in physics that
> finally shows that conventional quantum mechanics is an arcane, obsolete,
> and incomplete formulation of the physics of small matter.  Just because
> quantum mechanics mostly works, doesn't mean it is a good formulation of
> the problem.
>

It is important to distinguish the Copenhagen interpretation of QM from the
results of the mathematical calculations.  I understand that many
physicists consider the mathematical calculations to be the essential part
of QM and the Copenhagen interpretation to be something that is up for
debate and a function of personal tastes.  I gather that the results of the
QM calculations are the effectively the same in almost all cases, whether
you're considering standard calculations or ones based on pilot waves.
When the topic of the Copenhagen interpretation and pilot waves has come up
for discussion, the challenge that has been raised is to produce a case
where an experiment will distinguish between the two.  Without an
experiment to sort between the two descriptions, the selection of
interpretation is perhaps a philosophical/esthetic one.

There are a few corner cases where the pilot wave approach will yield
different results.  Perhaps the EM drive is tapping into one of them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM,  wrote:

I don't think there is a lot to be gained from finding an additional means
> of
> bringing about fission. We already have a quite effective way of doing
> that.
>

The things I like about the idea:

- The process would not involve neutrons.
- There might be the potential for fission in stable (in contrast to
radioactive) heavy isotopes, and so more fuel.
- Without knowing much about the feasibility of the process at this time,
if it proved to be really effective, you might be able to fission medium
mass isotopes, in contrast to heavy isotopes.  The daughters would lie
closer to the line of stability and hence be less radioactive or not
radioactive.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:34 AM,  wrote:

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:10:22 -0500:
> Hi Eric,
>
> While the concept is interesting, consider that it won't deliver excess
> energy
> unless the original isotope is already radioactive. If it is, then you may
> have
> a way of shortening the half life. How are you contemplating going about
> it?
> (Plenty of radioactive substances around that many people would be only to
> happy
> to pay you to take away. ;)
>

The hope was that if the idea had merit in the case of heavy nuclei that
decay by spontaneous fission, it might also be applicable to heavy nuclei
that are normally stable.  One thought about how to trigger the process: a
strong magnetic field will shift the electron orbitals in a preferred
direction; perhaps this will in turn set up a gradient of electron density
along the preferred direction.

Eric

[Vo]:Fission of heavy nuclei under assymetric electron screening?

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

There are a few people (e.g., Robin) who may be able to comment on this
possibility:

I have wondered about the following possibility for fission under
asymmetric electron screening:  Consider a moderate to heavy nucleus. In
heavy nuclei, the balance between the Coulomb force and the residual
nuclear force is a very delicate one. The sensitivity of this balance can
be seen in the case of alpha emission in oblong deformed nuclei, where
alpha particles are more likely to be emitted at the poles of the nucleus,
where the Coulomb barrier is thinner, than at the waste. I propose that if
you could get nontrivial asymmetric electron screening for any amount of
time, e.g., a gradient of electron density in which the nucleus momentarily
resides, the tidal forces caused by the differential balance of nuclear and
Coulomb forces on either side of the nucleus would cause the it to become
unstable and liable to fission.

Not sure how plausible this idea is, but it's an interesting one to think
about.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two
analyses that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were
thought by the authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel
instead, due to how the samples were obtained:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104910.html

This is of course consistent with the understanding that Rossi may have
purchased some 62Ni at some point.

Eric



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental
>> divide/watershed issues.   Either he swapped the samples or there was
>> evidence of transmutation.   There is no middle ground.
>>
>
> Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this instance, but
> I know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular
> samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample
> sometimes come up with different results. These samples would have to be
> tested in 2 or 3 labs before I would have confidence in the results.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

My understanding of the details around that email about the positive test
is vague.  In your quote from Mats Lewans, he is is quoting Rossi, whose
testimony I do not at all take at face value or assume to be accurate.
What I do know is that at one point early on IH thought they had replicated
Rossi's technology. That early positive replication was later called into
question by at least two events later in the timeline:

   - IH claim to have gotten a significant COP using Rossi's methods but
   without any fuel in the reactor.
   - IH claim that as they tightened up their testing after that initial
   period, they no longer saw evidence of excess heat.

There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
including the fact that they began to diversify their portfolio,
essentially demonstrating in monetary terms that they didn't want to put
all of their bets on Rossi.  (That was Woodford's money, by the way, not
IH's, and they were and are responsible to Woodford for how they spend it,
at the risk of incurring a lawsuit to have it clawed back if they
improperly enrich themselves.)

Now, what do we learn about Rossi from the court docket?  Too many things
to be worth mentioning at this point, at the risk of forever plowing over
old ground. Enough, though, for anyone who has followed the details, even
those who are strong supporters of Rossi, to no longer take at face value
what he says.

Eric


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would agree that the court documents were significant.  I particularly
> thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of
> fuel  and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture ,
> known by only 4 individuals, was deterministic.
>
>
>
> From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted:
>
>
>
> “During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made
> public, where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process
> successfully. We also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at
> such replications. Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of
> those replications, after which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat,
> even before the [one-year 1MW] test started in Doral [Miami], at a time
> when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.”
>
>
>
> I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an
> extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile
> excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of
> Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the
> contents of the lawsuit docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow,
> except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome
> of the lawsuit.  Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any
> particular outcome.
>
>
>
> So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more
> divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in
> their impressions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> 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 <comandantegri...@gmail.com>
> *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
> <https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-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]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You engage in mind reading, you assign a
> motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on
> that thread and see that it is not personal.
>

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=67028#post67028

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an
extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile
excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of
Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the
contents of the lawsuit docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow,
except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome
of the lawsuit.  Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any
particular outcome.

So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more
divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in
their impressions.

Regards,
Eric


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
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]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>

Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.

Eric

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address.

Eric


-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>


Hi Roger,

If Galileo directed repeated, charged personal attacks with crass language
at valued participants on LENR Forum, he might not have lasted long.  I
don't know what his personality was like, and I suspect he just made claims
that people didn't want to here [hear].  But if he was pugnacious in the
sense of changing the conversation from a debate to simple personal
attacks, the world would have had to benefit from his knowledge and insight
through some channel other than LENR Forum.

Eric



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
> wrote:

> >>We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
>
> Galileo was pugnacious
>
>
>
> On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>
>
> In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
> as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
> and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
> to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
> seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
> such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.
>
> You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>
>
> Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
> you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
> Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
> Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
> action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.
>
> I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at
> LENR Forum at this point and allow you the last word.
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
> but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
> one side of the insults.
>

Crass language and attacks are not content; they're just ways of
undermining a civil discussion.  Sometimes Mary insults people, but this is
more because she has no filter rather than because she's seeking to
escalate a discussion into a fight.  There is no charge to her insults.
She almost always focuses on substantive points.  To exclude Mary, whose
views are controversial and disagreeable to many, would be to subtly shape
the debate and exclude someone who has occasionally been a source of
interesting information.

Debate consists of arguments; once a discussion devolves into attacks and
the trading of insults, it is no longer a debate.  Discussion with Mary
never devolves into the simple trading of insults as she almost always
addresses some substantive point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>

In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>

Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.

I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
> notice.   Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even
> knowing about it.
>
> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
> You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for 2
> years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone upthread
> tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his claim.   For a lawyer,
> he sure missed quite a few legal points.   But that didn't stop him from
> insulting someone else on the forum.   When you review my comments you will
> see that I did not start any insults, my insults are responsive.
>
> Mary Yugo isn't even a woman.   He got booted rightfully so from this
> forum and he/she's trolling yours.   If you had wisdom you'd remove her/it
> from your forum as well.
>
> I'm not "new" to the forum, I signed up more than 2 years ago.   But it
> was a backwater then so it fell off my radar.   I am "new" to Rossi vs.
> Darden because it's been sitting on the back legal burner for more than a
> year.   You have other commenters that are hurling insults.You should
> just admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will want to head on
> over to your discussion.   And also, you should make your title say
> "Moderator".You're far too thin skinned to jump in as an untitled
> moderator.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
>>>
>>
>> When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we
>> moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications.  Had you
>> known how things are done on LENR Forum, you would have known that
>> throwaway comments with crass and insulting language get moved to a
>> separate thread and know where to find them.  We generally put a note at
>> the bottom of a comment once it's been moved to let people know about
>> this.  You did not know that LENR Forum does this, because you dived right
>> in with your throwaway insults rather than getting to know the place.
>>
>>
>>> Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.
>>
>>
>> We put trolls and would-be brawlers on probation.
>>
>> You yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.
>>
>>
>> I gave my reasons for this in an earlier response to you, which you do
>> not mention.  I'll link to my reply:
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items
>> /?postID=62766#post62766
>>
>> You allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
>>> again without notification.
>>
>>
>> It's invariably a judgment call.  If there's either a substantive point
>> that has been made, or the person is known to make good points and insult
>> everyone equally and without an emotional charge, they're less likely to
>> have a comment moved.  If the insult is obviously charged and the comment
>> brings no useful additional information, it's likely to be moved.  We do
>> not apply a rote formula.  We apply judgment in an effort to raise the
>> level of conversation.  This weighs somewhat more heavily against posters
>> who have little substantive to offer.  That's just the nature of the
>> situation.
>>
>> So those of us who would like to go over there will have to jump through
>>> your unpublished moderation guidelines
>>> in order to avoid "probation".
>>>
>>
>> Or you could just lurk for awhile and see how things are done.  It's a
>> natural thing to do when coming to a new forum to try watch and observe and
>> see how things are done.
>>
>>
>>> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some of
>>> your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been banned
>>> from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>>>
>>
>> Mary Yugo has always been controversial, but she almost invariably
>> addresses matters of substance rather than intending to rile up other forum
>> members and start a fight.  She insults people, but her aim is not to start
>> a brawl.  She has brought up many good points about Rossi over the years,
>> so she gets a little bit of latitude to be a character.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Type A nickel" ?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM,  wrote:

Mills has previously obtained results with Molybdenum. If this is available
> as a nano-powder off the shelf, it may prove interesting.
>

Alan G., I would also be interested in your taking a look at neodymium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Comments get moved to another thread without notification.
>

When people such as yourself flood the forum with throwaway comments, we
moderators would spam the place to give as many notifications.  Had you
known how things are done on LENR Forum, you would have known that
throwaway comments with crass and insulting language get moved to a
separate thread and know where to find them.  We generally put a note at
the bottom of a comment once it's been moved to let people know about
this.  You did not know that LENR Forum does this, because you dived right
in with your throwaway insults rather than getting to know the place.


> Commenters can get put "on probation" without notification.


We put trolls and would-be brawlers on probation.

You yourself are a moderator but it doesn't say that on your title.


I gave my reasons for this in an earlier response to you, which you do not
mention.  I'll link to my reply:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=62766#post62766

You allow insults from some people but not others in a one-sided fashion,
> again without notification.


It's invariably a judgment call.  If there's either a substantive point
that has been made, or the person is known to make good points and insult
everyone equally and without an emotional charge, they're less likely to
have a comment moved.  If the insult is obviously charged and the comment
brings no useful additional information, it's likely to be moved.  We do
not apply a rote formula.  We apply judgment in an effort to raise the
level of conversation.  This weighs somewhat more heavily against posters
who have little substantive to offer.  That's just the nature of the
situation.

So those of us who would like to go over there will have to jump through
> your unpublished moderation guidelines
> in order to avoid "probation".
>

Or you could just lurk for awhile and see how things are done.  It's a
natural thing to do when coming to a new forum to try watch and observe and
see how things are done.


> There aren't that many rules over here on Vortex but even still, some of
> your more vociferous and full-of-shit members over there have been banned
> from Vortex, like MaryYugo.
>

Mary Yugo has always been controversial, but she almost invariably
addresses matters of substance rather than intending to rile up other forum
members and start a fight.  She insults people, but her aim is not to start
a brawl.  She has brought up many good points about Rossi over the years,
so she gets a little bit of latitude to be a character.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

They are following it on LENR-Forum but the moderation there is so
> blatantly one-sided and biased that the actual narrative posted isn't what
> went on.
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=3
>

I will be happy to do my best to respond to questions that people might
have about moderation over at LENR Forum.  We're doing our best, and
sometimes people have other ideas about how we should be doing things.
That's natural.  But I don't think our approach has resulted in a skewing
of the narrative relating to the Rossi v. Darden story, except to filter
out people who are only seeking to pick a fight.  Even those people's views
have not been suppressed, merely moved to a separate thread where they will
not derail the main thread.

Regards,
Eric

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

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield 
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

[Eric Walker]

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

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - Brillouin

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

I have seen no confirmation of Energetics being purchased by someone else,
> but obviously another party has stepped in on the IP. A further interesting
> detail is that Violante in Italy, the Texas Tech group, and also Abundo in
> Italy are reported to be using a similar approach of highly structured
> waveforms in the range of 100 kHz and up, which could be seen as
> technically infringing and/or attempting to get around the Dardik patent.
>

I think Irving Dardik, also of Energetics Technologies, joined the SKINR
group at the University of Missouri [1], which might fill in some of those
details.

Eric

[1] http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/kimmel.html

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> If I remember correctly it was something like that.  The counter had to be
> very close to register clicks, such that it was consistent with alpha
> particles, but it was not stopped by a peice of paper, which would have
> stopped alpha particles, but which would allow through a voltage transient.
>
I believe paper will allow beta particles through, which will also be
picked up by a GM counter.  I assume you were correct in your assessment
that the dV/dT was messing with your GM counter.  But I doubt a piece of
paper would rule out everything interesting.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

It worked quite succesfully for a couple of days experiments, during which
> I found that the high dV/dT it generates causes false positive clicks on my
> cheap geiger counter.


What was the approach you used to determine the clicks were false
positives?  E.g., interposing a thick piece of metal?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems not
> unreasonable


This is an interesting line of speculation.  It might be worth raising it
at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com.  I would be interested in
knowing what mainstream physicists think of it.

This line of speculation is related to my thinking on how the EM Drive
might produce "propellantless" thrust.  If enough beta decays and electron
captures were being induced in the device, and the neutrinos were emitted
anisotropically, i.e., preferentially in one direction, that might produce
measurable thrust.

Eric

[Vo]:OT: Before truck drivers, active fund managers?

[Eric Walker]

A topic long of interest on Vortex is what implications the revolution in
technology of the last few decades will have for employment.  With the
imminent advent of self-driving vehicles, one occupation that seems at risk
is that of driving trucks.  But one gets the sense that any dramatic
changes in that sector are a few years off.  An occupation I wasn't
expecting to be on the line is that of managers of actively managed mutual
funds.  Recently BlackRock began consolidating its actively managed funds
with funds that rely on algorithmic trading, along the lines of Vanguard's
exchange-traded funds:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/dealbook/blackrock-actively-managed-funds-computer-models.html?_r=0

There are still some actively managed funds at BlackRock, and this area of
the business is still profitable.  But it's not clear how long it will
continue to be.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I have
> yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories highlighted by
> them.
>

Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense of
those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit derivation of
the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly based on those
equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very helpful thing.  My
strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the Mills neutron-electron mass
ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from them.  But your knowledge here can
help to dispel this impression.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Eric Walker]

The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory of
Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy, and I have a hard time not
concluding that this is other than intentional.  I had my suspicions from
the start, but they were more than borne out when we actually looked at one
of the "predictions," in this case of the electron-neutron mass ratio:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4761-brilliant-light-power-dec-16-2016-uk-roadshow/?postID=45162#post45162

The mess of equations are obviously word salad, and no one who champions
Mills has been willing to connect the dots.

I guess I'm open to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps
them going.  But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several
volumes of hand waving.  Is it because these books seem impressive to some
people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations on
their own?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

I hope to be in the former group [people who control AI] and my intention
> is to encourage my fellows not to take advantage of those in the latter
> [everyone else].
>

The persistent human tendency to hoard and look out for one's own and one's
narrow interests makes me exceedingly pessimistic that exhortations to the
AI masters to do the right thing will be effective.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:56 PM, H LV  wrote:

You mentioned "not-iron" before but can you clarify what you mean by this
> term? Thanks.
>

This is just a placeholder for whatever is converted to iron, e.g., 28Si +
28Si, since Narayanaswamy reports there being something creating iron
(which implies a nuclear process).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:

​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
> produced by stellar fusion.​
>

This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the
Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in
the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
isotopes.

If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
equilibrium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

Hi Harry,

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV  wrote:

If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then
> one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally
> non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature as an
> accurate approximation in the high energy domain.
>
> Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is
> exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way
> to conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain.
>

I gather with this suggestion that you are arguing against CoE in the case
of the Coimbatore smelting facility, i.e., that many nuclear bombs' worth
of energy disappeared into thin air every 24 hours.  Please correct me if I
have misunderstood.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV  wrote:

​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
> the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
> the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>

Ok.  Can identify concretely the analogous inaccuracy in modeling that
occurs in applying the equation E = mc^2 to the production of 1.3 metric
tons of excess iron in the Coimbatore smelting facility?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as
> being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands.
>

The robots from Boston Dynamics are certainly a bit scarier than humanoid
robots.  Here is one of their latest models:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_NCB3KkiY

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

An application of AI that I think will be possible in the near-term future,
if there are not already people working on it: lie detection.  There is a
school of behavioral psychology that believes that people's behavior
changes in subtle ways that betrays them when they knowingly tell a lie,
even if it is not obvious to most observers.  It is these kinds of subtle,
hard-to-identify cues that machine learning excels at discovering and
making use of, even if the AI has no profound understanding of the behavior
that it is identifying.

One possible application:  a political action committee has an AI
continuously monitor C-SPAN video feeds of people in government together
with witnesses called before them to give testimony.   Whenever the red
light on top of the AI goes off during a segment of the video, political
operatives look further into the matter in order to dig up dirt on whoever
was equivocating.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual
> bee does. ... The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to
> human intelligence.
>

Perhaps.  But there is at least one way that human intelligence might be
similar to the pre-programmed naturalistic intelligence of bee colonies.
See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/sunday/why-we-believe-obvious-untruths.html

The authors argue that people know much less than they imagine and must
rely upon specialization and a cognitive division of labor with other
people in order to "know" things outside of the narrow scope of their
direct experience, such as why the earth revolves around the sun or how
cancers form.  Because humans are excellent at blurring the boundaries
between what they personally know and what is known by people in their
immediate and more distant networks, they imagine themselves to know much
more than they really do.  In this sense, they are a lot like the bees,
which are not all that smart on their own.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM,  wrote:

Thinking outside the box is not a sin.
>

It's fine to think out of the box, if rigor is still applied and
hand-waving is not resorted to.  In this case either we apply E = mc^2, or
we don't.  Do you accept that this law applies in the case of the "excess
iron" in the Coimbatore smelter?  Or do you argue for violation of CoE?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid
> even when he has detected muons by the ton?
>

You make an excellent argument that Holmlid is NOT seeing muons! :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount
> of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:
>
> 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
> 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si =
> 1300.4396227 kg 28Si
> 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J
>
> That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
> hours).
>

I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:

  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni =
1300.167211 kg 56Ni
  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)

So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
hours.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM,  wrote:

Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or
> about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions.  Muons that were to carry
> away mass may not be noticed.
>

If muons were to carry away that mass, they would quickly decay to more
basic matter, e.g., electrons, positrons, neutrinos and annihilation
photons, after exiting the smelter, presenting a lethal radiation field
within the facility and depositing a good portion of the energy into the
surroundings.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM,  wrote:

Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of
> Ni56
> involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:-
>
> Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days)
>
> Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days)
>
> ...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might
> be
> something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered,
> because
> the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation).
>

The first of the three reactions in this series is:

28Si + 28Si => 56Ni + gamma + 10.9 MeV

Whether or not that gamma is thermalized efficiently, e.g., via internal
conversion, the heat will be released into the environment, in contrast to
the energy that is lost in the subsequent reactions from neutrino
emission.  If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then
the amount of energy released into the environment for this first reaction
would be:

1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = 1300.4396227
kg 28Si
1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J

That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
hours).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV  wrote:

Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
> It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build
> or take apart nuclei with much less energy.
>

It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps most of the energy was
quietly dissipated via neutrinos, following Robin's suggestion.  But if
there is a nuclear transformation from not-iron to iron, and neutrinos were
not a big factor, then the physics is straightforward:

  E = mc^2 = [ (mass of not-iron) - (mass of excess iron) ] c^2 = [delta
mass] c^2

If for some reason this situation does not hold, then it seems to me that
the CoE discussion comes up again.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM,  wrote:

Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of
> Ni56
> involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:-
>
> Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days)
>
> Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days)
>
> ...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might
> be
> something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered,
> because
> the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation).
>

It's an interesting thought.  I walk back my earlier comment about the
amount of energy that would be released into the smelting facility a little
bit.  If we're contemplating unrealistic scenarios, it doesn't hurt to
consider the more interesting ones.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

My apologies, I quoted the wrong person.  I meant to respond to this
comment from Bob:

The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of
> 55.93494 is not very much.   It may be that Si fusion is involved in the
> Indian steel plant.
>

Eric



On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
>> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
>> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
>> produced on a daily basis.
>>
>
> If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own
> admission that [1]:
>
> A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27
>> tons of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and
>> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total
>> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power
>> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical
>> number!  Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it
>> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more
>> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments!
>
>
> 2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on
> Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if
> Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in
> a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023
> "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting
> facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent
> profit.
>
> This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE
> discussions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-
> extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
> produced on a daily basis.
>

If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own
admission that [1]:

A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27 tons
> of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and
> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total
> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power
> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical
> number!  Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it
> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more
> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments!


2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on
Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if
Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in
a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023
"Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting
facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent
profit.

This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE
discussions.

Eric


[1]
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM,  wrote:

One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe.  Oxides and carbon
> mass may also be involved.
>

The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess
iron", because it's already iron.  And the carbon would be a wash, existing
in equal quantities before and after.  If we're assuming a change in
nucleus, as Narayanaswamy does, then there are the parent nuclides,
whatever they are, and the daughters, which in this case is the excess
iron.  The change in nucleus is what causes the mass deficit (or mass
excess) as a result of the putative nuclear reaction.  That change in mass
between parent and daughter nuclides is what implies an unrealistically
huge energy release or deficit.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33,   
> wrote:
> 
> The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
> releases are the norm. 

The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical 
reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron 
to iron.  If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this 
mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will 
necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation 
for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an 
unrealistically large positive (or negative) value.

Eric 

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.
>

In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain
a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve a
transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or
to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy reports
that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from
something else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
> even a few ounces.


I agree entirely.  Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as
an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter
elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make
the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb
example.  And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide
the fuel.  So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission)
seems far-fetched.

But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the
Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd
need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of
alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic
pathway).  So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the
production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is
leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you
suggest.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and
> the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron
> and silica."


A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one day
would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding amount
of energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small amount of
the fissile material is converted to other elements.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:DESCRIBING THE MANELAS Phenomenon

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

More needs tobe said but there is some new physics at work in the Manelas
> billet.


Just because it's fun to call things ahead of time, I will venture that the
Manelas device induced some kind of beta decay/electron capture in the
billet which was responsible for the continuous voltage without much in the
way of heat.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

The boars seem pretty healthy despite their contaminated tissue. I am not
> sure if that is good news or bad news.
>

Exposure to (natural) radiation used to be thought to be beneficial to
people's health.  I wonder whether the safety limits for radioactivity were
set far lower than they needed to be out of an abundance of caution.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM,  wrote:

Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future
> inventions and related IP to IH.
>

These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and
its amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.  I recommend reviewing these
when you have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

I think the Second Amendment is in dispute.  But most of the details are in
the License Agreement, doc. 1-2.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Could the future that started out as cold fusion be ... ta da... thorium fission ?

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:25 PM,  wrote:

In order to be at least the same, and considering that the energy input per
> fission event would need to be about 10 MeV, you would need at least 1 GeV
> muons.


In the context of muon-induced fission in thorium (something I skimmed past
here recently but have not yet read up on), this might not be a
requirement.  In muonic lead, the mean charge radius of the 1s muonic
orbital lies *within* the nucleus.  So that's almost an additional -1e of
charge that is screening the Coulomb barrier.  We've discussed the
possibility of induced fission through screening of the Coulomb barrier
here before, and there were good arguments for and against additional
electron density increasing the fission rate.  But consider for a moment
that if muonic thorium has a higher decay rate, this is potential evidence
for negative charge increasing the rate.

Does anyone have a link to the discussion of muon-induced fission in
thorium?  This abstract suggests that there's some kind of reverse internal
conversion, but I wonder whether that's the full story.

http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.1297

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

I found the LENR Forum thread where we looked in detail at several papers
by Holmlid and Holmlid and Olafsson:

   - dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116, "Spontaneous ejection of
   high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109, "Muon detection studied by pulse-height
   energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809, "Nuclear particle decay in a
   multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on ultra-dense hydrogen
   H(0)", Holmlid

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/3728-can-we-talk-about-holmlid/

Here is the mainstream physics view on ultra-dense deuterium, which, even
though it might be blinkered, is good at least to be aware of:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36064/is-ultradense-deuterium-real

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate
> both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles.
>

As I mentioned, I don't trust Holmlid to do this right.  It's not
straightforward to differentiate muons from energetic electrons.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we
> should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his
> data.
>

The thing I would like to see examined experimentally is whether those
charged particles are energetic betas.  I think they've been ruled out
prematurely.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Russ,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed
and close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.
Unfortunately the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard
to call up.


> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
> productive dialog.
>

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here
they might apply to:

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other
members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous
disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer"
who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the
thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses
others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation,
but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as
thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.
Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll


> But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from
> the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l
> often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.
>

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to
add you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it
is only to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of
substance, rather than being detained in addressing further ad hominem
attacks.

All the best,
Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
> castle on a foundation of sand.
>

This is my sentiment exactly.  Holmlid presents his work as experimental
work, but there's such a long chain of tenuous theoretical assumptions
woven into the reports that it make it difficult to follow him to his
conclusions.  There's something pathological about that.  That's a pity,
because he might actually be observing something anomalous and interesting,
whatever it is.  I am not surprised that mainstream scientists, from what I
can tell, are wary of Holmlid's body of work.  We should make an effort to
distinguish between good science that has been unfairly neglected and
discredited (e.g., some of the LENR studies) from tendentious science that
has further work to do to support its conclusions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Russ George  wrote:

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga!


Who's standing by Huizenga?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Russ,

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his
> commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a
> complete fool or a disreputable troll.
>

Perhaps you're insinuating something that wasn't suggested or intended?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that
> detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle
> physics at CERN.
>

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists
at CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and
Olafsson).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and
neutral radiations in this latest paper?  I've been hoping he would do so
for years.  To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading
up to this one:  an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred
from the timings of signals seen in a self-built muon detector and
oscilloscope by a researcher with no prior experience detecting muons and
without the benefit of calibrations against a known muon flux, all reported
in papers that thoroughly mix together theoretical constructs (ultra-dense
deuterium, etc.) with low-level experimental observations.

I have zero trust in Holmlid to accurately report muons, let alone kaons or
pions.  I will not consider a conclusions of muons to be credible until a
reputable third party with established expertise in characterizing charged
particle radiations signs off on this.  I continue to take interest in
whatever experimental phenomenon Holmlid is investigating, however.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

There is a more far fetched possibility - that of communications via
> gravitational waves.  There have been a number of papers talking about the
> conversion of EM waves into gravitational waves in certain types of
> superconductors.  If that ever proves to be possible, it would open a whole
> new spectrum - one that could harbor SETI communications.
>

Because gravity appears to have infinite range, assuming there are
gravitons, they are expected to be massless.  This means they will travel
at the speed of light.  From this PhysicsForums post [1], I infer that for
masses under human control which would serve as the source of the
gravitons, they will have very large wavelengths.  Is there a way to send
lots of information over a signal with a very low frequency?

Gravitons aside, if the alien signal is spread across a spectrum, as you
mention, I suppose it might be very difficult to detect.  If the
transmitted signal further involves intentionally taking the background
noise and making small adjustments to it, you would probably have to be
looking for this kind of pattern specifically to determine that there was a
signal at all.

Eric


[1]
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/graviton-energy-and-frequency-wavelength.242145/#post-1780881

Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

I think the real concern for weaponization is not the first thought
> everyone jumps to, which is explosive magnifier.
>

In addition to the possibilities that have been mentioned, there is another
that comes to mind should at some point LENR be harnessed as a practical
source of energy.  Consider small, quiet drones the size of hummingbirds,
which are able to linger in an area for months on end.  With such devices a
state player could quietly assassinate anyone who was not deep in some
bunker.  Before long this technology would be available not only to
militaries, but to organized crime and terrorism as well.  There might be
little that could be done to protect from such a threat.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> One possibility is that the EM Drive may be ejecting mass, not in the
>> form of baryons, but in the form of leptons, namely, neutrinos . . .
>>
>
> That might be tricky to test for. For ordinary particles, you would put
> the thing in a box and see if it stops thrusting. But neutrinos would go
> right through the box walls.
>

Yes, it would be tricky to test, which makes it a good fit for the EM
Drive, which is kind of mysterious in its operation.

Here are some possible things to look for, ranging from practical to
impractical:

   - Look for isotopic anomalies in the cavity materials.
   - Look for de-excitation gammas of characteristic energy (but don't
   assume they must be there).
   - Look for bremsstrahlung with an endpoint approaching the
   characteristic energy (in case there's something like internal conversion
   going on).
   - Look for excess heat.
   - Look for thrust, in the event that the neutrinos are being emitted
   anisotropically. ;)
   - Put the thing near a neutrino detector that will be able to resolve
   its location spatially.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

Just to point something out -- the EM drive *obviously* doesn't need to be
> outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass.
>
> Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum,
> conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy, and conservation
> of mass.  While data trumps theory, this doesn't seem like the most likely
> explanation of the effect to me.
>

I feel like many in the scientific community following this development
have gone from the observation that no observable mass is being ejected to
the conclusion that no matter is being ejected, and that therefore there is
a lack of conservation of momentum.  This feels like a non sequitur to me
and that other possibilities must first be ruled out.

One possibility is that the EM Drive may be ejecting mass, not in the form
of baryons, but in the form of leptons, namely, neutrinos:

  * 32Si → 32P + β− + ν + 13 MeV

The reaction above is a beta decay; electron capture is another
possibility.  I don't propose this specific decay, but I mention it to make
a point.  Those neutrinos, although close to massless, will be carrying a
lot of momentum.  There are difficulties with this explanation, but not so
much as to preclude an investigation into the possibility.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

[Eric Walker]

I wasn't aware of any definitions of consciousness that rule out animals.
But watching enough animal videos on Reddit is sufficient to make one
contemplate vegetarianism. Even less intelligent animals often seem playful
or excited in ways very similar to humans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cILZ_cB3_so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f_CxV4eIrU

Eric

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
>

(1) In a neoliberal democracy such as the US, wealth buys political
influence and power.  Not necessarily in the same way that it does in a
country like Nigeria or India, where you can literally buy votes.  But in
more subtle but still potent ways.  Financial wealth in the context of a
country such as the US enables one to hire lobbyists at the national level
to influence the shaping of public policy in ways that benefit your
financial interests, and in ways that are contrary to the financial
interests of many other citizens.  Wealth correlates with political power.
Concentrated wealth predictably leads to concentrated political power.

(2) To a large extent financial wealth is not an absolute quantity but is
instead a relative quantity.  If there are enough people willing to pay 100
dollars for a bushel of corn, that will potentially raise the price of a
bushel of corn for everyone else, requiring a relatively larger portion of
their more limited income.  This is not a simple rule, and there are
countervailing forces, but neither is it something that can be ignored.

The extreme concentration of wealth is something to be afraid of.

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies,
> hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of
> wealth.
>

These are problems that cannot be easily or cleanly separated from the
extreme concentration of wealth.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and
pions as well.  Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following
decays to deal with:

[image: Inline image 1]


The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or
positrons, which lead to 511 keV annihilation photons, a signature that is
easy to pick up and that will pass through thin shielding.  The energy
balance for kaons does not make sense to me; but, then again, neither does
that for pions or muons.

If we go along with Holmlid and allow negative kaons, we must either also
allow positive and neutral kaons, or we must come up with a reason for why
they don't occur.  But it doesn't matter; negative kaons are no doubt not
being detected in the first place.  They are a merely means to an end,
explaining, however tenuously, where the muons come from.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the
charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.  In
your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George  wrote:

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
> even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the benefit
> of longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into
> an understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’,
> there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions
> to what is becoming a choir.
>

What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion that
Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe
you've been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to believe
that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to
support your position with concrete details.


> As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
> neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to
> do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago,
> “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast.”
>

Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions.
It's for your own credibility!  You've taken on the position that Holmlid
is seeing muons or mischugenon.  You should now give support for that
position.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George  wrote:

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
> mischugenon, that is the question.
>

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.


> Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the
> common inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply
> listening to the data speak to us.
>

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more
> interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is
> common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s
> ‘muon’ as a very good step in the right direction delivered through very
> valid experimentation and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair
> semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers
> they would disappear sooner.
>

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something
else.  And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals
to those reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that
Holmlid has successfully ruled out other explanations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where
> – precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real
> data? Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic,
> almost by definition”?
>
I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)
 It seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various
reasons, in the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism
in LENR.  If one does not believe this is true, ok, then further
experiments can and should be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done
by people other than Holmlid, who has invested his reputation in there
being muons.

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which
can be confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You
also often add qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.
My point pertained to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure
engineering approach in which the claims of one inventor are simply chained
together with those of another inventor to obtain some far-out result.
With you, at least you're pretty good about pointing out that it's just
speculation.  With many people, there's no clear evidence that they know
that they're engaging in speculation, which can lead to long threads whose
initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to begin with.

> I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because
> it is revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in
> practice - but no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or
> failed replication, the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should
> be given benefit of the doubt …
>
I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with
great skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of
those signals.  I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something
LENR-related.  But to my knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise
in measuring charged particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons;
he continues to insist that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other
possibilities; and he imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way
of detecting low energy muons without the benefit of a calibration source
of some kind to provide a cross check on his results.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
That is a weakness of Vortex.  Claims made by characters of various
stripes, including Holmlid, which are contraindicated in multiple ways by a
simple application of logic are nonetheless incorporated into analysis as
though they are factual.  I also see this at LENR Forum, and even more so
in the comment sections at E-Cat world, which I no longer follow closely.
Over a period of years, one learns to filter out much of what is discussed
and to focus on specific details of interest.  I am sure all of this is
disorienting to someone coming upon it fresh.

Some contributors here are in fact more reserved in their judgment about
different claims than they appear and simply have a communication style
that omits all of the careful qualifications one would hope to see.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:37 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Does this mean that a few Nobel prizes were awarded a bit premature?  Are
> they ever recalled once proven in error?
>

It would be very embarrassing for them to have to recall Nobel prizes.  I
wonder whether they would do it.  (Obviously they won't be able to take
back the prize money.)

Eric

[Vo]:Article: Is dark energy a real thing?

[Eric Walker]

The following article describes a study calling into question one
experiment upon which the notion of dark energy is based:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1023/Is-dark-energy-a-real-thing-Maybe-not-new-study-suggests

Also of interest, two articles discussing a study that says that the
rotation of spiral galaxies does not seem to require dark matter (not sure
whether these have been mentioned before):

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160921085052.htm

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach
> from first principles which might the match well with one or more of the
> more usual top down theories ideas.
>

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was
a bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and
just catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy
Nuclear Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into
sufficient detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start
looking at actual experimental papers.  There are several authors that have
repeatedly reported them over the years, including but not limited to these
ones:

   - Iwamura
   - Mizuno
   - Saavatimova
   - Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over
the map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up
on more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the
data but at guessing at what's going on:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because it was speculative, one
shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's a section on Rossi
that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail
on what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric