RE: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools animation generation packages
Guys, can you please move any further discussion about web-tools to vortex-B??? -Mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Requesting recommendations on Web Authoring tools animation generation packages Jed, I downloaded XAMPP and eventually unzipped the contents onto a thumb drive. I think running XAMPP on a thumb drive will make it possible to run my own portable test server wherever I go. I haven't run my own web server since the 1990s. I'm sure a lot of things have changed since then, particularly security issues. If I execute the xampp-control.exe control program and start up the apache server (and MYSQL) I noticed that this inserts an XAMPP server icon in my window's system tray. Ok, standard operation procedure. ;-) I can access http://localhost and see that XAMPP is running. Success! Ok, so far, so good. However, if I attempt to shut down the XAMPP server it seems shut down my entire household network. In no time my wife lets me know that she can't access her favorite web site where she has been posting messages... and what the hell have I done to the network this time! So far the only way I can get the household network up and running again (that is, after I attempt to shut down the XAMPP service) is to restart both my modem and wireless Lynksys router. That seems to clear up the communication problem. I suspect (I hope) my current approach is fixing the problem with a sledge hammer. Are you aware of a less brutal way of shutting down the XAMPP server while leaving a home network unscathed? Just curious. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Strobe-light for atoms... cont'd
Can I reply to my own posting?! J Here's another recent article http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-exotic-ultracold-atoms.html with PDF here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1202. where they trap ultracold atoms in an optical lattice and then use a controllable (in direction and I assume magnitude) magnetic field, to help elucidate its affect on electrons. begin excerpt Charles Clark, co-director of the Joint Quantum Institute, and his co-authors at George Mason University, the University of Hamburg, Germany and the University of California, Riverside have studied what happens when ultracold highly magnetic atoms are held in an optical lattice and subjected to an external magnetic field, which can be steered in various directions. This field tugs on the atom-sized magnets and, along with the direction of the field itself, leave the atoms standing upright or pulled over on their sides at various inclinations described in the figure by the angles phi and theta. In this way, the researcher can tune the interaction-force on demand. end excerpt I wonder if they can do this with just a single atom, of any flavor? -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 12:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Strobe-light for atoms... cont'd They're getting closer to the atomic strobe-light, and the kind of experiments I want to see! http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-scientists-lcls-photovoltaic-action.html begin excerpt Stop-action X-ray snapshots of a ferroelectric nanolayer showed that the height of its basic building block, called a unit cell, contracted in response to bright light and then rebounded to become even longer than it was to begin with. The entire in-and-out atomic-scale wiggle took just 10 trillionths of a second, yet it indicated the mechanisms responsible for the materials photovoltaic effect. What we saw was unanticipated, Lindenberg said. It was amazing to see such dramatic structural changes, which we showed were caused by light-induced electrical currents in the ferroelectric material. The telling X-ray images were taken at the X-ray Pump Probe instrument of SLAC's Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), which hit the ferroelectric samples with a stunningly rapid one-two punch of violet laser light (40 quadrillionths of a second long) and X-rays (60 quadrillionths of a second long). The researchers analyzed information from thousands of images to determine the photovoltaic mechanism. end excerpt == About a year ago I posted some msgs discussing atoms/electrons/protons as a collection of coupled oscillators. It is a qualitative/geometric/physical model, not quantitative. yet. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42571.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42581.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47117.html In this posting, http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51705.html I describe an experiment that I wanted to see, and the above PhysOrg article is getting close to achieving this. - Hold a single H atom in a fixture so that it is not physically touching anything else. This can be done in a vacuum chamber and using electric and/or magnetic fields to hold and position it. These fields would also likely orient the atom in a consistent way. - With the EXTREMELY fast strobe light (ultra-ultra short pulse laser), slowly tune the frequency of the strobe-light and eventually it will equal the frequency of oscillation of the electron, or a subharmonic of it, and you will have a very high resolution image of that electron. ***AND***, it will appear to be motionless. Anyone who has used a strobe-light to set the ignition timing on a car knows exactly what I'm talking about. - Now with the phase-delay knob on this strobe-light, we slowly adjust it and you will view what appears to be a slow-motion movie of the electron's movement. To use the car-timing analogy, turn the distributor slowly and the timing-mark on the flywheel slowly moves in one direction. According to my model, I would be willing to bet that one would see the electron move thru the nucleus with every oscillation. but it traverses the center region much more quickly than when it reaches the outer bounds of its oscillation where it has to slow down and reverse direction. I hope the scientists get this done before it's my time to go! === -Mark
RE: [Vo]:
It is most likely a phishing expedition! I've been in the Collective for several years and have *never* seen that kind of msg from eskimo.com (the domain where this mail-list is hosted). Any emails asking for username/password should be ignored! Legit companies will never ask you to supply that kind of info in an email. -mark From: Drowning Trout [mailto:drowningtro...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 1:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: I also received it, definitely looks like a scam! Don't trust it! Is someone launching a phishing attempt on the Vort collective? On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Tom Barnett thjbarn...@googlemail.com wrote: I got this email below. Could someone verify that this is legit and not spam? thanks, Tom WEB TEAM webmas...@webteam.com via eskimo.com http://eskimo.com/ 06:17 (2 hours ago) to vortex-l Dear Subscriber, We are experiencing some serious technical problems with our servers. Therefore, we would be shutting down all unused and unverified accounts. So to avoid deactivation of your account, you will have to re-confirm your e-mail address by replying with your login information's below. Username : Password : This is a very simple and easy to do. Just click the reply button and forward your login details to us. once we receive the requested information you will be able to continue using your account without interruption. Customer Care Case number: 8941624 Property: Account Security Copyright C 2011 Web team Inc. Thank you.
Re: [Vo]:The power generator that runs by water
Just fwding this from zt. it went to my personal email but could be of interest to the Collective. -mark http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=vitl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fvatl yvietnam.org%2Fforum%2Fshowpost.php%3F%26p%3D83599%26postcount%3D6 sl=vitl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fvatlyvietnam.org%2Fforum%2Fshowpost.php%3F%26p%3 D83599%26postcount%3D6 Quite an extensive link but this is the best analysis i have found so far
RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate
Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a particular direction, so where do you place your detector? It probably depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its physical structure. If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors and place them on the x, y, and z axes. Or just one detector, but do multiple tests moving the detector to a different location. Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be evidence supporting novel nuclear processes. -Mark From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with temperature spikes of the reactants. This wuold be a good way of verifying the LENR effects. Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all classified as background. If I get a clear reading way above background readings, that would be a clear indication of a nuclear process, wouldn't it? And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind. The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a nuclear process manifesting during a mechanical procedure? It is not a purely mechanical or chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical and chemical conditions. I believe this is similar to Deflakion's chemically assisted nuclear reaction. The process itself is not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons, but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement As far as I know, this is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the chemical reaction. But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples and explanations. Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen that produces radiation, am I not correct? Please feel free to correct me. 0- Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch tape. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25 Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging. Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations, it is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative counts above background over time - for decent statistical analysis. From: Joseph Hao As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases radiation,
RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate
JoJo: First, I applaud your open-mindedness and efforts! You stated: This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is perfectly parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit the ends of the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas in the chamber. This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit in a random direction and hence would be detected. Normally I would agree, however, there has been some discussion in the Collective about a year ago on the issue of particle detection, and I remember some discussion on the fact that the longitudinal axis of the E-Cat was pointed in the direction of the room where visitors were waiting, including Celani who had his rad-detector instrument. He noticed a brief period of detector activity, then a few minutes later Rossi entered the room and announced that they fixed some problem and got the E-Cat to running state. In case you aren't aware, there has also been some evidence that particle emission may occur only during startup and shutdown. so, summary is, we cannot assume that particle emission won't occur only longitudinally! It all depends on the internal geometry of the core. and things yet to be discovered! You can proceed with you tests, but if they result in no activity, it might not be conclusive. however, if results are positive, then ignore all the above! Good luck and be careful! -Mark From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 10:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Thanks Mark. My reactor would be totally enclosed inside the cylindrical wall, which is the Ion chamber Anode. The reactor itself will be the Ion chamber Cathode. This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is perfectly parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit the ends of the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas in the chamber. This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit in a random direction and hence would be detected. However, I am unsure how a Ion Chamber with the reactor walls itself as the Cathode would work. In my estimation, the hydrogen inside the reactor would Ionize and would be attracted to negatively charged reactor walls. I suspect this would create some kind of bias current and charge buildup that would be interpreted as a positive hit by the electronics. I could reversed the polarity but that does not remove the charge buildup problem. Not sure if this would work. More experiment is required. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:04 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a particular direction, so where do you place your detector? It probably depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its physical structure. If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors and place them on the x, y, and z axes. Or just one detector, but do multiple tests moving the detector to a different location. Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be evidence supporting novel nuclear processes. -Mark From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with temperature spikes of the reactants. This wuold be a good way of verifying the LENR effects. Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all classified as background. If I get a clear reading way above background readings, that would be a clear indication of a nuclear process, wouldn't it? And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind. The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a nuclear process manifesting during a mechanical procedure? It is not a purely mechanical or chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical and chemical conditions. I believe this is similar to Deflakion's chemically assisted nuclear reaction. The process itself is not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons, but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement As far as I know, this is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the chemical reaction. But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples and explanations. Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen
RE: [Vo]:A new use for the Vortex ... Vortex Radio Waves
Kewl! And so kind of them to name it after this forum! :-) -Original Message- From: Ron Wormus [mailto:prot...@frii.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A new use for the Vortex ... Vortex Radio Waves Really creative! http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/120803-vortex-radio-waves-could-boost-wi reless-capacity-infinitely
[Vo]:FYI: interesting (or more like long overdue) findings on structure of atomic nucleus...
New picture of atomic nucleus emerges http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-picture-atomic-nucleus-emerges.html .a quarter of the nucleons in a dense nucleus exceed 25 percent of the speed of light, turning the picture of a static nucleus on its head. Hell, I could have told then that! J When most of us think of an atom, we think of tiny electrons whizzing around a stationary, dense nucleus composed of protons and neutrons. Geez, how much more of a beating will it take to finally kill that horse (model). -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Krivit on SPAWAR LENR Shut-down
These comments are interesting: In response to your recent query, Fallin wrote, while I won't discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. There are other organizations within the federal government that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. So SPAWAR specifically is out of LENR, not the whole Navy. And most telling is this... We have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur. So they are transferring further research to some other facility or department... i.e., they KNOW something novel is happening and that other entity will continue the work. It could also mean that the whole field of LENR has been reclassified as secret, and is being transferred to the black-ops community... don't look for anything coming out of those folks that helps out us peasants! -Mark -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Krivit on SPAWAR LENR Shut-down Navy Commander Halts SPAWAR LENR Research http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/01/navy-commander-halts-spawar-lenr- research/ SPAWAR LENR Research Background Information http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/03/01/spawar-lenr-research-background-i nformation/ (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
RE: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik)
Daniel: As DGT has stated SEVERAL times, is it up to the visiting entities, NOT DGT, to release test results!!! You are not reading things correctly.. perhaps because English is not your native language. Those entities, if they CHOOSE to release the results, will very likely do it via the mainstream media, and their own website, NOT DGT's website. Thus, the closing down of the DGT forum will not make any difference as to whether data is publicly released. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT's 1st test did not test power, just safety (NyTeknik) Do not expect to see any data from these tests: Until Defkalion Green Technologies has its product, we shall no longer get involved in the games and blogs of online media. Our next announcement in the coming months will be that of a successful and certified product. http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4 http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1278 t=1278 Data is surely a part of these online games.
[Vo]:FYI: faster than a speeding electron... how fast is that??? Radar gun for electron flow...
Just some interesting science. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-electron-detection-breakthrough-unleash- next-generation-technologies.html The researchers discovered that by shining light from a high-power laser onto a material that contains moving electrons, light of a different color is generated. They looked at thin crystals of gallium arsenide - a material commonly used in high-speed electronics and photonics. By applying a voltage across the crystal, they set electrons to move through it with a specified speed. By illuminating the crystal with an infrared laser pulse, invisible to human eyes, they found that visible red light was produced - a signature of the second-harmonic generation process. Additionally, they observed that the brightness of the red-light scales with the speed of electrons. When the electrons have no directional motion, no red light comes out. By detecting the red light, one can accurately determine the speed of electrons without making any contact with the sample and without disturbing the electrons, Zhao said. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
The key wording is here: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work *to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.* It is converting *heat* energy to light. not electricity-to-light!!! Thus, as they *lower* the forward bias V, *electrical* efficiency INCREASES because it is not using electrical current for operation; as Jones said, it's the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion. If the material is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with miniscule current flow. thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand. 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Pay attention at this: Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission for a LED. Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract: A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage VkBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As a result the device's wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency. however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
PDF was too large, so go get U.S. Patent No. 0119825, McFarland. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that virtual inertia comes from being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [why should undisturbed matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some kind of local stability?] Jones, Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect? http://www.haroldaspden.com/ T
RE: [Vo]:Protestants vs Catholics
I think Reality has been talking to Rich Murray! :-) -mark -Original Message- From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com [mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Protestants vs Catholics Terry, The 21st century has arrived with a replacement for the fractured, patched and obsolete Physics of the 20th century. Read it as the new revelation of Wladimir Guglinski and become a believer. Simple, sound, easy and a perfect tight fir for universal aspects of our Physical life. Stand clear of commingling Spiritual and Physical concepts. Clarity at last, Reality
RE: [Vo]:Test day in Greece time
Noone^2 wrote: I not a very jovial person. Yaaa think? J Whatever the baggage you're carrying around with you, don't you think it's time to let it go? It does nothing by make one's life miserable and full of drama. -m
RE: [Vo]:South Africa Fuel-Free Generator Report : Theory?
It's KEN Shoulders, not Ed Shoulders... -Original Message- From: Zell, Chris [mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:34 PM To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:South Africa Fuel-Free Generator Report : Theory? To explain: Ed Shoulders is not some ill-educated crackpot. He discovered a 'particle' he initially called Electron Validum, later changed to charge cluster. Some Russians independently made the same claim, calling them ectons' or something. Anyhow, they are transient structures of huge numbers of electrons briefly stuck together, somehow in defiance of mutual repulsion. They can go thru refractory material like butter and their concentraion of charge means they can bust thru a Coulomb barrier and transmute atoms. Shoulders says that various government types wanted to classify his patents as secret but he published his results in such a way as to prevent that.
RE: [Vo]:[JONP] About Leonardo Corp. property + end of partnership with NI
What was interesting in the e-catsite.com article was this: . soon on this site I will post an article and details regarding an LANR (lattice-assisted nuclear reaction) patent that has been translated into English and made available to this site by its author. The patent was originally granted in Belgium in the 1990s but has since lapsed. The author has requested that I publish that information here as he wishes it to be shared and widely disseminated. Does anyone know who he is referring to? RE: Rossi/NI situation. My assumption all along was that NI was helping more with engineering/technical *advice* on how to monitor the various parameters. they have extensive experience in that area. There would be no need for NI to remain actively involved for any length of time once the instrumentation design was completed. at that point, NI might just be a supplier, but even that is unlikely since their products tend to be quite pricey, and Rossi wants to keep the price as low as possible. -Mark From: Wolf Fischer [mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[JONP] About Leonardo Corp. property + end of partnership with NI Turns out there seems to be another side to the story (again): http://e-catsite.com/2012/02/21/ni-corroborates-rossi-statements/ Betts confirms that the partnership has ended. She however also confirms Rossis statements on how the relation between both parties has been. Further, the term discussion seems to be meant as a deeper collaboration in the beginning. Wolf
RE: [Vo]:Wordpress mockup of LENR-CANR.org
Morning Jed, Very first impression upon seeing it was well done; simple and organized. First paragraph summarizes its purpose, and first page summarizes the content to be found. No BS distracting one's eye from the real info... good job! -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:48 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Wordpress mockup of LENR-CANR.org See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/ What do people here think? I honestly do not see any advantage to this compared to old-fashioned HTML screens, but maybe I should give it a chance. This took an hour to produce. It is easy to work with, I will grant. Some of the pages and links here are functional. Hold the cursor over Special Collections. Select Special Collections (or click here): http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=57 And try clicking on BARC Studies in Cold Fusion Note that on this screen I removed the Google search and Recent Posts from the left side. I think I can put back something like a menu of special collections on the left side, instead of Recent Posts. Or if the section is too long I can put a list of headlines there, which would be a good idea in the section A look at experiments. The LIBRARY menu item goes to the new library screens. In the News section, I set the number of news items to 3, so the arrow appears at the bottom saying Older posts. In a real system I suppose I would set it to 10 or 20. This is a rudimentary, no-frills theme. There are thousands more available, ranging from bad to atrocious. See, for example: http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/ They all waste a lot of screen space. Most of them feature distracting and gratuitous graphics. I can instantly insert one of these other themes to change the overall appearance. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:South Africa Fuel-Free Generator Report
Frank: Nothing I read indicates that it's a magnet motor. It uses a 'modified' motor, and I'm sure it has magnets or electromagnets, but nothing indicated that it was purely a magnet motor. Please show where you got that impression. -Mark From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:South Africa Fuel-Free Generator Report I have seen so many magnet motors. They come and go..Galteck, Takahasi, the Smout, Why change now? -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:South Africa Fuel-Free Generator Report At 09:18 AM 2/22/2012, ecat builder wrote: Sterling Allan has posted his report on his trip to South Africa to see a 5kW fuel-free generator: http://pesn.com/2012/02/22/9602042_South_African_Fuel-Free_Generator_Prepar ing_for_Market/ This technology is back on Sterling's #1 spot for Top 5 Exotic Technologies. I guessed it was a failure (the radio silence and the removal from the top-5 list). So .. presuming it's not fake ... how does it work? (I followed some of the earlier links)
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Testing
Oh no. sounds like MaryYugo's brother. only worse. Jarold, GET OVER IT! Just wait it out like the rest of us. Or, get some people and equipment together and try to replicate it like a few of us. If it makes you feel good, just call it a fraud and move on. nothing to see here. -Mark From: Jarold McWilliams [mailto:oldja...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:48 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Testing I have been very patient with all of this. I was willing to wait until March 31, and even then I wouldn't consider it 100% fraud with no tests. Rossi is a liar if he doesn't even look into conducting a test with Smith, and there is no reason to believe anything he says with no proof. On Feb 15, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Testing
Terry the interrygator asks: How old is your hotmail account? Good question! Enquiring minds want to know... But being the well seasoned troll that MY is, he probably has several alter-egos so when one of them is banned, and questions arise as to when #2 started, as is the case here, he can always claim that alter-ego #1 and #2 were posting during the same period; that #2 didn't 'just' start after #1 was banned... as if that's some kind of proof that they are two different people! -m -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Testing On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote: Just more useless speculation that you are wrong about. I was on DGT while MY was there, and I told her/him to be more patient until more information was released. Well, we are familiar with MPD. How old is your hotmail account? T
[Vo]:Of Nuclear Masses and MIT...
Jones: FYI: your intuitive ruminations about the a.m.u and nuclear masses not being all that 'constant' just might prove insightful! In his latest paper, Hagelstein mentions that excited nuclei have differing masses. The problem he has encountered is that traditional models for condensed matter (which have been quite successful so far) have failed to provide the necessary coupling between nuclear and phononic (lattice) energy transfer. He has come up with a new approach which he thinks has merit. Here are two quotes from that paper to provide some understanding. The intuitive picture that has emerged over the past few years of thinking about the problem is that the different excited states of the nucleus have different masses, and under appropriate conditions it may be possible for the nucleus to notice the mass differences of the different configurations. This could provide the physical basis for phonon exchange in association with configuration mixing. The resulting model can then be used directly to develop a new Hamiltonian for nuclei in a lattice that includes the coupling consistent with a many-particle Dirac formulation. Interestingly, the model that results seems to include a relativistic effect which provides a *direct coupling between the lattice motion and excitations in the nucleus*. Keep on Ruminatin'. J -Mark
RE: [Vo]:MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter
The key phrase in the abstract is: In the resulting model, there appears a new term in which nuclear transitions are coupled to lattice vibrations. I wonder if Hagelstein has been reading Znidarsic's work? :-) -m -Original Message- From: David ledin [mailto:mathematic.analy...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter to explain many observations of anomalies in condensed matter systems. they named Fleischmann , Pons and Piantelli but not rossi . http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf
RE: [Vo]:MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter
Axil wrote: There are many new quantum mechanical experiments done recently that show how quantum wells transfer coherence between quantum particle types of all kinds. I just saw one where a photon can spin a tiny quantum wheel...light to mechanical energy. Here's the reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/nature10787.html Yes, there have been several developments in the last few months about coupling between different energy types. I think the pieces of the puzzle will be coming together this year. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter
Although not quite the same, here's another one which is quite interesting: Harnessing plasmonics, engineers weld nanowires with light http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-harnessing-plasmonics-weld-nanowires.htm l In before-and-after electron-microscope images, individual nanowires are visually distinct prior to illumination. They lay atop one another, like two fallen trees in the forest. When illuminated, the top nanowire acts like an antenna of sorts, directing the plasmon waves of light into the bottom wire and creating heat that welds the wires together. Post-illumination images show X-like nanowires lying flat against the substrate with fused joints. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT suggest new physical model for condensed matter Axil wrote: There are many new quantum mechanical experiments done recently that show how quantum wells transfer coherence between quantum particle types of all kinds. I just saw one where a photon can spin a tiny quantum wheel...light to mechanical energy. Here's the reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/nature10787.html Yes, there have been several developments in the last few months about coupling between different energy types. I think the pieces of the puzzle will be coming together this year. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
And those of you on both sides of this, including Dr. Schwartz, failed to see/acknowledge that the 'claims' that Krivit was reporting were QUOTES from OTHER LENR researchers (WL???). For example: [researcher#1] New Energy Times had received a tip from a LENR researcher that the gain was 18 milliwatts. [Krivit, restating researcher#2] Today, another LENR researcher provided us with Swartz's data. The first researcher was off, but not by much. It was 80 milliwatts, not 18. [#1 or #2???, not Krivit] In 23 years, he has yet to sustain anything more than 1 watt. There is little in Swartz's work to get excited about. [Krivit] The second researcher, who provided Swartz's slides today, wrote this comment to me in an e-mail: [researcher#2] When you look at the data, you can see, barely, a 1 degree C temperature rise for about three minutes, using about 12 mW of input power to produce less than 100 milliwatts of heat. This is not a breakthrough. So it seems that all of the specific statements that were WRONG, were Krivit reporting what *others* had told him, HOWEVER, that does not excuse his lack of careful review to determine whether those statements were accurate or not. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit Mitchel is correct. Krivit is making a fool of himself and is unable to evaluate anything or anyone that does not support WL theory. He is a pathetic and idiot sold out. 2012/2/5 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex-L I saw this posted on Dr Mitchell Schwartz s website on Krivit: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html I am merely a messager. I am sure that there will be interesting comments. Ron Kita, Chiralex -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit
Don't understand the confusion. The LEFT half of the chart has the word 'CONTROL' written above it in BIG letters, the RIGHT half has NANOR above it; NANOR being Schwartz's acronym for his version of LENR technology. The traces look to be continuous (i.e., from the same sensors), thus, he must have had a calibrating resistor inside that he could use to introduce a known amount of energy. Yes we need more details to feel comfortable about it, and hopefully Dr. Schwartz will provide them. -mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:29 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comment from Dr Mitchell Schwartz on Krivit Mitchell Swartz published this: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html http://world.std.com/%7Emica/krivit02052012.html In the first figure, the green line appears to be the response to input power being stepped up. I guess this green line shows the temperature in a control cell. Anyway, that is a splendid stable response, well in proportion to the input power. This allays some of my concerns about the calorimetry. However, I would like to know more about it. I do not not mean I suspect Swartz made a mistake. I wouldn't know. I just meant there are many way to make a mistake doing low power calorimetry, so you have to be careful. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clues...
Oops! Jones corrected my error where I said... and the three charged leptons (i.e., electron, muon and tau) each have integer spin. I meant to say *half-integer spin*... Thx Jones! -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Clues... Food for thought... I'm looking at wikipedia's List of elementary particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles and all Quarks and Leptons have an opposite (antiwhatever)... and the three charged leptons (i.e., electron, muon and tau) each have integer spin. I would argue, and this fits perfectly with my qualitative physical model, that as far as the leptons as concerned, the elementary 'particles' (e.g., electron and antielectron (positron)) are simply the two opposites of a dipolar oscillation; and likewise for the muon and tau leptons and their anti-particles... The oscillations are occurring so fast that we cannot, as of this date, distinguish the frequency of the oscillation, and thus, we PERCIEVE them to be separate entities. The more I delve into the details, the more I see agreement with the physical model which has been built up over the years... Enjoy the SuperBowl commercials! They're not nearly as good as they used to be... -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Robin comments on Heisenberg Uncertainty applied to remote viewing: I am beginning to suspect that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty aspect to remote viewing. The more clearly something is seen, the less is known about where or when it is. :) I think this could also apply to Rossi's progress toward commercialization! :-) -mark
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
Jones: Just adding to the 'clues'... this from my posting Dec.17, 2011. Look for phi-ratios in the numbers... -Mark = Golden ratio hints at hidden atomic symmetry Jan. 7, 2010 Courtesy Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres and World Science By tuning the system the researchers found that the chain of atoms acts like a guitar string whose tension comes from interaction between the spins of the constituent particles. For these interactions we found a series, or scale, of resonant notes, said Radu Coldea of Oxford University, who led the research. The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other, added Coldea, principle author of a paper on the findings to appear in the Jan. 8 issue of the research journal Science. The pitch of these notes, or their frequencies of vibration, are in a ratio of about 1.618, the same as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture, he continued. If two numbers are related by the golden ratio, their sum is also related to the larger of them by the golden ratio. In other words, if A divided by B is that special number, then A+B divided by A is the same number. = attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Clues...
Food for thought... I'm looking at wikipedia's List of elementary particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles and all Quarks and Leptons have an opposite (antiwhatever)... and the three charged leptons (i.e., electron, muon and tau) each have integer spin. I would argue, and this fits perfectly with my qualitative physical model, that as far as the leptons as concerned, the elementary 'particles' (e.g., electron and antielectron (positron)) are simply the two opposites of a dipolar oscillation; and likewise for the muon and tau leptons and their anti-particles... The oscillations are occurring so fast that we cannot, as of this date, distinguish the frequency of the oscillation, and thus, we PERCIEVE them to be separate entities. The more I delve into the details, the more I see agreement with the physical model which has been built up over the years... Enjoy the SuperBowl commercials! They're not nearly as good as they used to be... -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Bill: Don't know if you're aware, but MY's true identity has been determined... It started with a discovery by Robert Leguillon in this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62551.html And Terry added some additional thoughts in subsequent posts... The discourse has returned to the 'normal' rational, tech/sci-focused discussions which make this a unique forum... I tried several times to explain the uniqueness of the Collective to George, aka MaryYugo, but to no avail -- Thanks for performing the exorcism! Instead of people leaving due to 120+ postings a day, we now have comments like this: JoJo wrote: Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the embarrassing experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. And PeterB wrote: I have only been on Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight. There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range of views. I'm starting to learn to appreciate the criticisms more as well. It's good to be challenged -Mark
RE: [Vo]:ET - Call home
Daniel: Without getting an explanation from the source, i.e., a Sumerian scribe, how do we know FOR SURE what the PROPER meanings should be in those 'dictionaries'??? The meanings that ended up there are LIKELY influenced by what the current thinking is on cosmology and other scientific fields of study. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:ET - Call home Well, he was busted when dictionaries of sumerian were made widely available, including online. It seems he overused creative translation. But, who knows... 2012/2/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Jones, Interesting SA article. I seem to recall scholar/archeologist Zecharia Sitchin speculating on the premise that the Sumerian civilization was influenced by an amphibian race of beings. Sitchin was a prolific author. He rote numerous scholarly books on his ET hypothesis. I haven't read any of them, so I dunno. I'm more inclined to think of the film The Abyss by James Cameron as a reasonable example of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced aquatic species who might chose to visit our world. Talk about the manipulation of water! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Alan, what is SPAWAR B A N ? ? ?
The thread subject was: Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research It was initiated by Jed in this posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59243.html Note that Jed misspelled SPAWAR (SAPWAR) in the opening sentence... With further comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59270.html You could also write Krivit and ask him. -Mark From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Alan, what is SPAWAR B A N ? ? ? What is a SPAWAR BAN, and forbidding to work on something order. Is there any source where I could get more info?
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Jones: You might want to follow this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg35942.html The quote from the PhysOrg article which starts the thread is this: So you have one set of data that tells you the mass-dependence picture doesn't work and another that tells you the density-dependence picture doesn't work, Arrington explained. So, if both of these pictures are wrong, what's really going on? I know this doesn't speak directly to your point of the variability of the 'constant' referred to as the a.m.u., but I see that you did not participate in that thread and thought you might have missed it; it may have some relevance to the a.m.u. issue. For all the rookie Vortexians: My point in starting that thread was the following: And the experts dare say that fusion is IMPOSSIBLE under the conditions present in a CF cell? This can ONLY be said if one knows everything about nuclear interactions, and CLEARLY, they DON'T! A highly H or D-loaded metal lattice is not normal, and could be considered 'far from equilibrium', so how can anyone claim an unexpected phenomenon couldn't happen? The kind of science story which reports on an unexpected result is becoming more common now that we're able to discern things down to the nano-scale and pico-second... with all that we are able to accomplish, and build, and the accuracy to umpteen decimal places, it's easy to fall into the mindset that there isn't much to learn about atomic/nuclear physics. Clearly, there is still much to learn... ANYONE who says that LENR/CF is impossible is not a scientist... regardless of whether its 'real' fusion, or some variant. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1 Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a true lie since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is not exactly equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without recalibration - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the known value. How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton has such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can provide thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, when the excess is multiplies by c2. This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar as far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the average of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is said to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even that is a lie, since if it were binding energy instead of force, then there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The proton does not decay (as best we can tell). More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - is finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider nuclear and look at subnuclear. Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that one, and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but the Maru Ni-H is getting more buoyancy by the hour. And that
RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
David: Who knows what Rossi is using for the heating elements! J Things change on a weekly basis with him… IIRC, earlier last year, Rossi said they used a “Programmable Lighting Controller”… PLC. However, that acronym has different meanings; to most in the USA, PLC stands for “Programmable LOGIC/LADDER Controller”. There was a lot of discussion on this very topic within the Collective the first half of 2011, so you might want to do a Search for articles using various keywords (PLC, ‘resistive element’, ‘band heater’. We covered many different ideas, including using one of the heating elements to form an E-field within the core… passing a current between the two heating elements… we can get pretty creative!! J Here are some link to Threads which cover the topic…. But be sure to scan entire posting as some of the relevant info is further down in the posting, in sections being referenced… http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune Good question Peter. I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in the past but they do not answer consistently. The Vortex has a number of excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects. A question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall upon fertile ground here. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune The question illuminates, not the answer (Eugene Ionesco) Why you are not asking on the DGT forum? Peter On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using AC. The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not recall anyone measuring it. One interesting possibility to consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures. Also, do we know how electrically conductive the core materials are? I wonder if the core net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power? What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region? A lot of questions and few answers. Maybe some of them will cause a light to shine within one of our collective minds. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements. Fran Jones Beene Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800 Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ?
RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
YW! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune Thanks Mark! This is excellent information that I missed since I joined to group much later. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 4:23 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune David: Who knows what Rossi is using for the heating elements! J Things change on a weekly basis with him… IIRC, earlier last year, Rossi said they used a “Programmable Lighting Controller”… PLC. However, that acronym has different meanings; to most in the USA, PLC stands for “Programmable LOGIC/LADDER Controller”. There was a lot of discussion on this very topic within the Collective the first half of 2011, so you might want to do a Search for articles using various keywords (PLC, ‘resistive element’, ‘band heater’. We covered many different ideas, including using one of the heating elements to form an E-field within the core… passing a current between the two heating elements… we can get pretty creative!! J Here are some link to Threads which cover the topic…. But be sure to scan entire posting as some of the relevant info is further down in the posting, in sections being referenced… http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51041.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49522.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46416.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49529.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51010.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg46322.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52470.html -Mark
RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
JoJo wrote: Axil, Please, by all means keep the speculations and the embarrassing experimental advice coming. I have learned a lot from you and many other people here. Vortex has been the most useful forum as far as gaining insight into replicating Rossi. And PeterB wrote: I have only been on Vortex a few months and I have gained much insight. There's a lot of smart people here with a wide range of views. I'm starting to learn to appreciate the criticisms more as well. It's good to be challenged Indeed! The Collective has been much more functional and in line with its founding principles when the disfunctionals are gone. keep the focus on the technical/scientific issues, and less on the personalities. TOGETHER, we have the technical/scientific expertise, the theoretical as well as the engineering expertise to make valuable contributions. There is no reason that we can't help push this technology along. perhaps the people of the planet will succeed once again where governments and 'professionals' have failed. To all the newcomers since early 2011, you might want to use the web-interface to the forum here: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.coma=1haswords a=1haswords= and do Searches in order to gather up the various discussions that went on after the Jan demo by Rossi. -Mark
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:The cooper pair dance.
Lou: I looked at the subject lines of the author's other papers and it seems he's focused on ball lightning... and it may be relevant. The other thing that comes to mind are 'charge clusters' which came out of Ken Shoulders' and Hal Puthoff's research. Try searching for 'charge clusters' and/or KS or HP. Buggin' out for the rest of the night... -Mark -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cooper pair dance. Perhaps this has already been discussed on Vortex-l, but a quick search yielded the following paper - Formation of Cooper pairs in quantum oscillations of electrons in plasma http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4596 - I have only briefly perused it, but if it's correct, it may point out some connections of high-temp Cooper-pairing, plasmons, and anomalous fusion. Some other papers by the author also address this issue: http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Dvornikov_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 Any opinions on this series of papers? - Lou Pagnucco Axil Axil wrote: When protons enter a micro cavity, they rattle and dance around it for a long, long time. All the while, the walls are vibrating.moving back and forth in a random fashion in the protons reference frame, As they bounce of the walls, the walls give and take energy away on each bounce. So when the protons encounter each other, they never have the same quantum mechanical properties. [...]
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
So MaryYugo was still using HIS female-sounding pseudonym instead of HIS real name??? HE must think we're really stupid. is HE not aware of the fact that HIS identity has been clearly established??? Randy, send me HIS response and I'll look it over. -Mark From: Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:WL
Giovanni/Daniel: I just want to thank you both for taking time to analyze carefully the W-L paper. We could use more theoretical types in the 'Collective'. -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:WL Ok, Daniel you are right. The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I misunderstood what the paper was discussing. Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. Giovanni
RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing
There seems to be the assumption that the video is an example of their latest and greatest level of heat generation! I may have missed it, but there is no such statement by DGT to that effect... it is just an example of *some* testing going on. Unfortunately, this smacks of the same kind of inconclusive stuff we saw from Rossi... Since we know they monitor the Collective, perhaps they just wanted to counter some of MY's repetitious suspicions and accusations that they didn't even have a lab... which were obviously nothing more than baseless speculation. Back to a 'holding pattern'... :-) -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Defkalion video of internal testing From: Peter Gluck * * Jones, and why do they claim 650C and an experiment with duration of 48/48 hours? Well, maybe so, Peter - but that is not in evidence in the video we are talking about. If they have indeed gotten to both that level of heat, and for that length of time - in the same experiment with a heat sink - then that is a huge advance. But so far as far as they admit, the gain is far less than you think because they say no coolant. No delta T is mentioned. snip Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:magnetic monopoles and nuclear transmutations
Equation for Light Leptonic Magnetic Monopole and its Experimental Aspects Georges Lochak http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2752 An excerpt from the Abstract: Our monopoles are magnetically excited neutrinos, which leads to experimental consequences. These monopoles are assumed to be produced by electromagnetic pulses or arcs, leading to *nuclear transmutations* and, for beta radioactive elements, a shortening of the life time and the emission of monopoles instead of neutrinos in a magnetic field. In summary, they performed experiments of electrical discharges under water with Titanium foil (and other foils), and found that only 48Ti to be anomalously depleted in the 'ash', but that there were numerous other elements found; little if any excess heat, and no energetic particles/emissions. Seems that this experimental method strongly favors the transmutation pathway over all others (i.e., thermal, nuclear (strong force)). -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
In the first video that I watched, when the camera panned left to view the gas cylinder on the floor, they blurred out the vid shortly after the tank came into view... so are they conscious of what gets onto a video??? Yes... -mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:26 PM snip I could not spot a standard tank of argon anywhere, but there could be a lecture bottle in there somewhere. Argon cylinders would normally have a dark green shoulder. They might have cut out the footage of that tank for the obvious reason. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)
Kyle: If you are so bothered by the few tens of postings about MY in the last week, where was your objections to MY's 900 postings in 2 months, mostly about things that had already been conclude months before she started posting (11/10/2011); most of which were her speculations and suspicions about Rossi and the potential that it was all just pure scam? Funny you should scream about a few days of chastising now, but made NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER when it was Mary barraging the forum with hundreds of postings a week! She (he) is a cowardly skeptic who hid behind the veil of anonymity claiming she feared for her life because of threatening emails and such... she (he) is a liar... exactly what she was accusing Rossi of. -Mark -Original Message- From: Kyle Mcallister [mailto:kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini) --- On Sat, 1/28/12, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: As the one who 'rode her ass' a number of times, I have said that her (his) technical criticisms were WELCOME... but to lay off the focus on the personalities. Good idea. Discussing the science and analysis of the tests is what we should be talking about. Except that you and others are now doing exactly what you say she was banned for. Focusing on the personal nature/personalities. Why don't you do as you suggested before, drop this garbage, and let us get back to the real heart of the matter, the technology (whatever it is) itself? But it's a much different taste when the tables are turned, isn't it? You (not just you personally, Mark, a bunch of you) really didn't like what Mary had to say, and it pissed you off so much you just can't drop it. You have to dig it back up and keep going with it. The desire for the last word, the last insult, is just too much. And who can blame you? No one. You're only human, after all, and just as fallible as any of the skeptics you so despise. Meanwhile, the rest of us are all hoping, or praying, whatever the case may be, for a truly revolutionary thing that gives us essentially free (or at least far cheaper) heat during the winter, or clean water. She ignored all suggestions and continued with the barrage of postings... She (he) deserved to be banned, and this forum is much better off and more functional without her (his) presence. Yes, by my count things have drastically improved. In the last 24 hours, only a little greater than 50% of postings to Vortex-L have had to do with Mary's identity and motivations. Yes, indeed, this is grand progress. Good work, gentlemen, pat yourselves on the back. Three posts of the many in this thread have to do with the original topic. The rest have to do with the Mary legacy. Think about that. And maybe, just maybe, drop this garbage, and let's get back to the fun stuff that Vortex used to be about. --Kyle
RE: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)
Abd: Yes, you did indeed miss something... You are really out of touch with what went on, and WHY she was ultimately banned... Tell you what... you go back and read ALL 900+ of her (his) postings since only 11/10/2011, and then tell me that you still think that! Out of those 900+ postings, I would bet that 800+ were simply repetitious postings about Rossi's contradictory statements, the inconclusive 'demos', the unknown customer, and her 'suspicions' about Rossi's behavior and business practices. VERY LITTLE TECHNICAL CONTENT, and conclusions which the Collective had ALREADY settled on or mentioned by April of last year (and here she (he) was beating the pulverized horse in Nov/Dec timeframe). People were leaving the forum because there were over 100 unread postings in 24 hours (now we're down to less than 30)... so it was impacting the forum in a negative way... As the one who 'rode her ass' a number of times, I have said that her (his) technical criticisms were WELCOME... but to lay off the focus on the personalities. She ignored all suggestions and continued with the barrage of postings... She (he) deserved to be banned, and this forum is much better off and more functional without her (his) presence. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini) snip By the way, I'm disappointed by all the Mary Yugo bashing. I did not find MY's skepticism to be severe or particularly extreme, compared to plenty I've seen. Maybe I missed something, but speculation that a company that makes calorimetry equipment would sabotage that equipment when selling it to a cold fusion researcher, merely because a skeptic works there, is libelous and utterly out of place. snip
RE: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini)
Agreed, 110%... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A huge Rossi (bad) thing to be revealed soon. (Daniele Passerini) On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: I vote for stopping the discussion about MY's real identity right here. I vote all you johnny-come-latelys quit telling us old farts who have supported this forum for over 15 years to quit telling us what you do and do not want us to discuss. :-Þ T
RE: [Vo]:Resonances: Coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes (phonons)...
Morning guys! Yes, the state-space involves numerous variables, and their interactions (e.g., CONstructive vs DEstructive interference)... trying to model it, understand it, and then control it will likely be a monumental task. The complexity of the problem, and it's sensitivity to precise frequencies (because we're dealing with resonances), also makes this a VERY difficult thing to reproduce. -mark -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Resonances: Coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes (phonons)... Jones, My reply was originally to Mark Iverson's thread - I don't know why it started a new one. Mark is citing some experiments showing that photosynthesis is more efficient when driven by selected multiple fixed frequencies, and wonders whether there is a connection with CF/LENR effects. Good question on Ni-H. Rossi apparently uses an RF-generator. I have to check on others, like Miley and Defkalion. Energetics uses ultrasound - their signal is imprecisely defined in their patent application, but it's clearly broadband, and appears to have a discrete picket-fench spectrum. Based on the papers I've perused, I'd guess that optimal em/sonic stimulation depends sensitively on particle size, temperature, morphology, density, colloidal formations, crystallization patterns, proximity to surfaces, ... If Rossi's claims are accurate, I'd bet that National Instruments is trying to (somehow) close the loop in this huge state-space to stay in the tiny and elusive stable optimal operating spaces. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco Lou, This kind of photon stimulation was of great interest a few years ago and is known as the Letts/Cravens effect. They had a tortuous path to get it to a useful level when at EarthTech. Many null results in the process. Are we there yet? At one time they also were saying that a magnetic field adds to the effect. That is of keen interest as well, if this effect relates to quantum entanglement, in any way. Two additional points of interest that jump out to the Ni-H crowd: 1)This gain from optical stimulation applies to Pd-D. Does it apply equally to Ni-H? 2)The highest gain is at ~15 THZ which is a IR emission (near IR) better known from its wavelength about 1.5 microns. This corresponds to a blackbody temperature, so the laser only adds coherency. Actually the third point for interest for Ni-H watchers is derivative. If the answer to 1) is yes, then should not the active powder be in the size range of 2)? Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Along those lines, you might want to read - PROGRESS ON DUAL LASER EXPERIMENTS http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf EXCERPT: We have continued our experiments using duel laser stimulation of electrochemically loaded PdD. In earlier work, we used two properly oriented and polarized tunable diode lasers which provided stimulation at optical frequencies; interestingly, we found that the excess heat is sensitive to the beat difference frequency. Low-level thermal signals are observed to be triggered at apparent resonances when the difference frequency is 8.3, 15.3 and 20.4 THz Perhaps, also related is the ultrasonic Superwave LENR stimulation used by Energetics Technologies - http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf My impression is that their source has a wideband discrete spectrum of phase-locked frequencies - so that the same stimulus signal is repeatedly swept.
RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex?
RE: Jones 'the color of vortex' The video dude says: I am building Kapanadze type coils and modulating them with audio waves with multiple harmonics So, he is modulating the coil with audio-frequencies (20Hz to 20Khz???), and the bulb is somewhere in the circuit containing the K-coil(s)??? Have I got that right? -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:31 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:The color of vortex? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKzkvoTsixYfeature=related why is this light emission blue? The implications of a tungsten filament emitting at a higher frequency than expected is intriguing ... attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex?
No, didn't even see a scope! There must be multiple reflections making it look like there is some really unusual/complex filament structure inside the bulb... Did you watch his (user: magnetvortex) other vids? The one with the magnets in front of CRT (first color, then BW) is very interesting... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Zyk9jswO0 The BW test certainly appears to indicate a vortexial circulation causing CRT's electrons to twist first clockwise then CCW depending on which mag-pole is next to the CRT. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex? Did you see a scope shot? I would expect it to be typical of DPSR spiking - but how that translates into the skewed light is not clear. If it is audible frequencies, there should be more noise. Maybe he means high audible (above 10 kHz). There is an interesting cross-connection with the Letts/Cravens effect, and that is why I posted it. As best I can tell, the coil secondary is apparently wound and then counterwound, and then the primary is counterwound on top of them, with a gap. Looks to be air core. This probably results in a combination of DPSR interference peaks (Dicke-Preparata Superradiance) but the subradiance is somehow suppressed. Interesting that the tungsten emission spectrum is so heavily skewed. It would not surprise me that there is a strong UV component now, which was absent before. _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint RE: Jones 'the color of vortex' The video dude says: I am building Kapanadze type coils and modulating them with audio waves with multiple harmonics So, he is modulating the coil with audio-frequencies (20Hz to 20Khz???), and the bulb is somewhere in the circuit containing the K-coil(s)??? Have I got that right? -mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKzkvoTsixYfeature=related why is this light emission blue? The implications of a tungsten filament emitting at a higher frequency than expected is intriguing ... attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex?
Check out his youtube channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/magnetvortex and some of the comments on the lower-RH side, including link to this pdf. http://www.free-energy-info.com/VladimirUtkin.pdf -mark _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex? No, didn't even see a scope! There must be multiple reflections making it look like there is some really unusual/complex filament structure inside the bulb... Did you watch his (user: magnetvortex) other vids? The one with the magnets in front of CRT (first color, then BW) is very interesting... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Zyk9jswO0 The BW test certainly appears to indicate a vortexial circulation causing CRT's electrons to twist first clockwise then CCW depending on which mag-pole is next to the CRT. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The color of vortex? Did you see a scope shot? I would expect it to be typical of DPSR spiking - but how that translates into the skewed light is not clear. If it is audible frequencies, there should be more noise. Maybe he means high audible (above 10 kHz). There is an interesting cross-connection with the Letts/Cravens effect, and that is why I posted it. As best I can tell, the coil secondary is apparently wound and then counterwound, and then the primary is counterwound on top of them, with a gap. Looks to be air core. This probably results in a combination of DPSR interference peaks (Dicke-Preparata Superradiance) but the subradiance is somehow suppressed. Interesting that the tungsten emission spectrum is so heavily skewed. It would not surprise me that there is a strong UV component now, which was absent before. _ From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint RE: Jones 'the color of vortex' The video dude says: I am building Kapanadze type coils and modulating them with audio waves with multiple harmonics So, he is modulating the coil with audio-frequencies (20Hz to 20Khz???), and the bulb is somewhere in the circuit containing the K-coil(s)??? Have I got that right? -mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKzkvoTsixYfeature=related why is this light emission blue? The implications of a tungsten filament emitting at a higher frequency than expected is intriguing ... attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Chirping sounds in nature
Sounds like a horny cricket likes the warmth of his ham-shack! J My dad was a ham. W6PXZ. Good memories. From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chirping sounds in nature From: jean guy moreau So maybe Rossi is using a chirping RF generator to get his reactor going... Yes, this is the way the E-Cat sounds on Ham radio J http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsmzHbiZ3c
RE: [Vo]:Chirping sounds in nature
Jean: Do a web-search for Myron Evans. He was a very prolific scientist/mathematician, and published quite a number (over 100) of papers. One topic he did considerable work on was RF-induced fermion resonances using *circularly-polarized* RF, and I think there were also papers on pulsed RF. After he began interacting with Tom Bearden, his reputation suffered, and many of the academics helping out with his foundation jumped ship. got that directly from one of them! -Mark From: jean guy moreau [mailto:jgmorea...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:24 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Chirping sounds in nature Hi, First English is not my native language so please forgive the way my phrases are structured. From reading those fascinating messages on this list, i cannot help but notice that the basics of the magic reaction we are all wondering about is really simple after all. The right materials in the right geometry, plus a little helping energy and voila, bright future ahead. If it is so simple, then nature must have found a way to utilize this source of energy, so maybe we should look again at the energy balance of some living creatures, hummingbirds comes to mind, just dipping their tounge into a little nectar and up they go flying hundred of Km. Hummingbirds do something else that you can hear if you are close enough, they sing a strange chirping sound, as do insect, in fact most animals produce some kind of sound, frequencies should we say ? And of coures we have music all the time, in our ears and in our minds, don't we ? So maybe Rossi is using a chirping RF generator to get his reactor going... Jean Guy Moreau Quebec, Canada
[Vo]:Fate of the quark model...
I was reading the abstract for Anomalous mass of the neutron, 11/21/2011 on Rossi's JONP site, and there was this phase, The quark model (d,u,d). Is this perhaps descriptive of the quark model's ultimate fate? J -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
DGT has accused Rossi of using an idea or design which they came up with, and IIRC, they were referring to the flat, rectangular-shaped reactor core that Rossi began using instead of the cylindrical design seen in the first several demos in early 2011. So I think Rossi is now using something akin to what DGT is, and what you described in your posting. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance IMHO, quiescence is caused by deterioration of the micro-powder surface due to inadequate heat control. I speculate that DGT has move the heat producing powder zone to the reactor vessel wall. The powder is mechanically affixed to the reactor vessel wall with excellent heat transfer characteristics. Because of this design change, the temperature of the powder will never exceed the coolant temperature and therefore is idiot proofed But in order to get the powder above the Curie temperature of nickel, the coolant must support very high temperature heat transfer in excess of 400C. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have the answer, but it was my assumption, about control. Quiescence does not seems to be a problem with DGT according to their talk and (more important) to their test protocol (which does talk about continuous heat). 2012/1/24 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem.
RE: [Vo]:LEAD shielding - a dual purpose?
Hi Steven... Think the most likely explanation is that Rossi was trying to throw people off his trail; slow them down. If the competition thinks that gammas are produced in copious numbers, they will be looking at the wrong theoretical explanations... he's leading the snakes down the wrong hole. -mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LEAD shielding - a dual purpose? Good comments from everyone. snip
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones: A few questions... I have specific reasons for each one. 1) When you refer to the variable mass of a proton, are you thinking about H, or protons in all elements? 2) If the mass of a proton = m_sub_p +- m_sub_v , would the variability (m_sub_v) be less than or equal to the total mass of the electrons in the element? -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Chemical Engineer * Can one regen the hydrogen by circulating it through some type of catalyst, palladium etc to get it re-energized ? Very interesting question/speculation. In fact you may have hit on an important detail. This probably gets back to QCD and gauge bosons - and how (or if) nuclear mass can be transferred between nuclear entities, without benefit of a known thermonuclear reaction. I have no strong clue, and do not pretend to be an expert on the full range of QM, but have read as much on the subject as can be digested, up to now. If I had to guess with limited knowledge, it would seem that the heavier (in a.m.u.) that the donor is (it must be a proton conductor), then the more likely extra mass in the form of nuclear bosons would transfer - i.e. transfer from a heavier element to the depleted proton. Pd is a likely candidate, but there are better ones. Again, let's keep in mind the net proton mass is far from quantized. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average with a range of values, since it is not quantized like quark mass (and that it can vary a fractional percent or more as overage or deficit). Of course, some of the mass variation would then be convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. That is where QCD comes into play. Let's say the known mass of the proton in the standard model is 938.272013 MeV. However, this is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being employed - and that it can vary in individual protons. The quark component of protons is the only component which is fixed with a quantum value and at least a hundred MeV is in play. There is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder (pion, gluon, etc) - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity. Can this mass loss, if depleted (leading to quiescence) then can be replenished by exposure to a heavy nucleus (bringing the average mass of the proton back up)? That is the gist of our speculation. Perhaps the proton net mass can go down to say - 937 MeV, for instance, on a temporary basis, and with a decent amount of energy release - and thereafter this deficit is recouped. We do not need to specify how it is recouped (regauged) yet, but the route is surely encompassed in one of the definitions of ZPE (i.e. Dirac's negative energy 'sea'). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Resonances: Coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes (phonons)...
FYI: The presence of excess heat, and [near] lack of high-E particles/photons from LENR reactions would require coupling the large amount of E into the lattice vibrations (phonon modes) instead of into gammas (photons) or particles (neutrons and subsequently, dead grad-students). The article below looked into the energy-transfer (coupling) process in photosynthesis. They discovered that the coupling between electronic states and vibrational modes is greatly enhanced when they hit the light-harvesting complexes of algae with a 2-color (wavelength) photon spectroscopy. How does this apply to LENR? According to DGT, the form of LENR used in their technology (and likely all Ni-H gas-phase experiments) is a 'multi-stage' process. One of those stages is the coupling of the excess [nuclear] energy into the lattice instead of the usual gammas or energetic particles. I would posit that there is something unique about the geometry of the H-loaded metal lattice and the AMOUNT of heat energy that is present which determines the frequency of the lattice vibrations (phonons), which establishes a coherence similar to the below article which couples energy from electronic states to vibrational modes. The difference is that LENR would be coupling nuclear energies to the lattice... or could there be coupling from nuclear to electronic, and then from electronic to phononic? PhysOrg article: http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-role-quantum-effects-photosynthesis.html Key phrases: By using the newer, less common technique, called two-color photon echo spectroscopy, the researchers could excite only the pathway in which [quantum] coherence occurs. Singling out this pathway revealed clear signatures for strong coupling between the electronic states and the vibrational modes of the protein matrix (phonons) Our observation of strong coupling between the electronic states and the phonon modes of the protein matrix provides strong experimental evidence that classical treatment of these interactions is not sufficient, From the paper's abstract: ... allowing coherent coupling between otherwise nonresonant transitions. which is here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz201600f Longer excerpt from PhysOrg article: ... the quantum coherence in the algae's light-harvesting complexes was originally observed using 2D electronic spectroscopy, which uses short, broadband pulses to probe energy dynamics. The use of broadband pulses (i.e., pulses with a wide range of frequencies) excites many different pathways simultaneously. Although this technique can be useful, it also makes it difficult to isolate different processes since multiple excitations can interact and alter each other's dynamics. By using the newer, less common technique, called two-color photon echo spectroscopy, the researchers could excite only the pathway in which [quantum] coherence occurs. Singling out this pathway revealed clear signatures for strong coupling between the electronic states and the vibrational modes of the protein matrix (phonons) in the algae's light-harvesting complexes. As Davis explained, this type of interaction is not what is expected from the classical models that have traditionally been used to describe light harvesting and energy transfer in photosynthesis. Our observation of strong coupling between the electronic states and the phonon modes of the protein matrix provides strong experimental evidence that classical treatment of these interactions is not sufficient, and that models including the microscopic details of the coupling interactions are indeed required, Davis said. The quantum nature of these interactions increases the scope for quantum effects to have an impact and enhances the possibility of coherent energy transfer in photosynthesis. In the future, the researchers plan to further extend the technique to investigate these quantum mechanical interactions and the role they play in light harvesting and energy transfer. We are currently exploring the dependence of these coherent interactions on a number of experimental parameters, including temperature, wavelength and polarization, Davis said. These results will enable us to explore the nature of the excited states, their interactions with the phonon modes of the protein matrix and the role they play in energy transfer. We also plan to investigate whether such long-lived coherences also exist between other states in these systems and ultimately whether coherence transfer between states occurs and is relevant for photosynthesis. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
I was under the impression that the physical shape of Rossi's core was similar to what was used in DGT's Hyperion? More of a low-height, rectangular shape... -m -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system Am I right in thinking that if the Hyperion is roughly cylindrical, then the heat flow between the inner and outer surfaces is calculated as in A hollow cylinder http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Heat_Transfer/Conduction#A_hollow_cylinder For a cylinder of length L : inner R1 at T1, outer R2 at T2 Q = 2 pi k (T1 - T2) / ln ( R2/ R1 ) Since this cylinder is surrounded by another insulating cylinder we don't have to worry how it gets rid of the heat (radiation,convection,conduction) to the surrounding air. (I think I'll have another go with the Elmer FEM program).
RE: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Dear Giovanni, Your post was NOT trolling. I am probably the one most responsible for your reticence or concern about posting because I came down pretty hard on the trolls. and that probably has a few of you concerned about getting the same kind of treatment. *Please forgive me*, that is not my intention for those who play by the rules - we all want this to remain a friendly, respectful forum for discourse. Your posting was most appropriate and welcome! The first thing that comes to mind about your posting, is item 2); that somebody already thought of it. That has happened with cold fusion. and I'm sorry that I'm not good with names, perhaps Jed can help. But there were two papers, one early 1900s, and one decades later (one was by Paneth and Peters?) which stumbled upon what is thought to be CF/LENR. however, these were experimental papers, not theoretical, IIRC. But it was considered some kind of anomaly and never looked into. This is one of my pet peeves! That anomalous empirical data is many times forgotten and explained away as experimental error. But isn't science supposed to be about the unknown, and trying to better understand what we don't know.. Yet, there really are some things that will ruin your career if you attempt to do research on them! That is so anti-science, and yet, that is reality. FP, 1989, were the first to really study CF/LENR extensively.. for YEARS before they come out with it. they knew it was going to cause a lot of heartburn with their colleagues and especially the physics community. And it took guts to do what they did. and they paid dearly. Keep thinking and questioning and posting. Most Sincerely, -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination Orion, Hopefully my comment is not understood as trolling but as polite criticism. It is nice to have imagination and to think about things that are considered by main stream science as impossible. I wish more professional scientists could do that (some do and they wait until they come close to retirement or at least get tenure). What is also nice, though, is to try to see what could go wrong in a particular imagined idea or scheme as a way of understanding better and making more concrete what one imagines. It happened many times to me to think about ideas that I believed were great to find out almost always that two things were true: 1) the idea had some fundamental problem with it and I could not see it (at least at first) 2) the idea was actually good but somebody already thought about it It is simply difficult to come up with something completely amazing, right and original at the same time. But one can learn a lot from this thinking and it is a good way to learn and think about science and nature that are amazing anyway. Well, about the buoyancy perpetual motion we have the case that it is something unfortunately neither original (in the sense that somebody already thought about it) or really working (even if due to relatively subtle reasons). Somewhere non conservative forces are going to make your device stop. This why there is not a working model of such devices but often simulations can be found on the net. Here one example of a pretty complete discussion about different kinds of buoyancy perpetual machines and why they don't work: http://www.hp-gramatke.net/pmm_physics/english/page0550.htm Giovanni On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Speaking of Regularly Scheduled Programming, here's one from Ski-Fi channel! To my surprise, the troll, Eff Wivakeef, before he was banned, posted something that I personally found fascinating and transformational. Well. let me try to explain what I mean by transformational. * * * Warning! * * * This has to do with another one of those strange synchronistic woo-woo events that occasionally pass through my life. If you don't believe in synchronicity or the existence of strange Unidentified Flying Woo-Woos (UFW2s) you might as well skip the rest of this post. ;-) /* * * Warning! * * * I'm referring to the Troll's attempt to both taunt and ridicule the Vort Collective by posting a You-Tube link to a bogus free energy device allegedly based on the manipulation of gravity, gradient water pressure, and buoyancy. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-89SiqG3pI0 We see an individual, James Kwok, owner of a company called Hidro, explaining how his technology works with the aid of a fish tank filled with water and a flexible tube attached at both ends with inflatable bags. One bag has a weight attached to it. Kwok proceeds to give a warm fuzzy spiel with birds chirping away in the background on how gravity affects water pressure, and how this pressure buildup in-turn
RE: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination
Sure there is.. a hip dude by the name of P. Floyd talks all about it! Hmmm, for some strange reason, I'm feeling comfortably numb... :-) -Original Message- From: Kyle Mcallister [mailto:kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Garbage Collection of a Fool's Imagination There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact it's all dark.
RE: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked.
E.L. Mr. Bill Beaty, the list founder and benevolent, and mostly absent, dictator, shut The Collective down for ~24 hours after flushing the trolls down the . well, use your imagination. It is back online now and the signal-to-noise ratio is climbing fast! -Mark From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. Thanks Bill Although I'm new to this mailing list and haven't contributed much, I still enjoy reading the opinions, ideas and news from those more knowledgeable then myself. I must confess that I'm here mainly for the Rossi / LENR threads though. It was becoming impossible and time consuming to filter the repetitive garbage from the real posts as they pretty much polluted all the threads. I have to say though it's been deathly quiet here today. On 23/01/12 09:48, William Beaty wrote: Vtx thoughtcriminals. Scoffing and anti-fringe behavior, but didn't leave in disgust as suggested. Ungood! Time for Periodic Cleansing. removed: Mary Yugo effwivakeef Dusty Bradshaw Shaun Taylor Vortex traffic temporarily suspended. Getting everyone's attention. I'll leave subscribe turned off for weeks/months, unsubscribe remains active. Email me directly for problems, suggestions. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:insightful and concise...
In the interim, while the Collective was being purged of trolls, there were a few comments that went on thru the backup vortex, and I'd like to bring one very insightful comment by Mr. Beene over to this, the main forum, for posterity. The thread was about Rossi and DGT, what the coming year will bring, and the likelihood of who gets to commercialization first. Jones summed it up like this: I think it will probably *be* neither, but it will be *because of* both That is almost poetic. -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Lots of good, and *rational*, skepticism going on today. Rossi's failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his 'secret sauce'. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed. If Jones' statements about quiescence are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error. he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement. perhaps he was attempting a 'hail mary', and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering. it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a temperature inversion in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of quiescence. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of forced continuity (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
ChemEng: Just looked at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed and it certainly looks like a reasonable solution. Is the 'high heat transfer' property of fluidized beds larger than if you simply did film-deposition (as in semiconductor industry) directly onto a substrate? The applications that I saw on Wikipedia for FB reactors are for chemical processes/reactions. Realize that with LENR we are dealing with several orders of magnitude more intense energy release, so will FB heat xfer be fast enough to get the heat away from the reaction sites. Rossi's early 'reactor cores' were cylindrical, but then 'evolved' to more plate-like (low height rectangular), which DGT claims was their idea. this was most likely due to better heat xfer capability. -mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance That would be my guess. A lump of powder might quickly get hotspots and meltdown. If you can keep a fluidized bed going the heating would be uniform. Maybe that is why defkalion showed that test reactor with a window in it to see when the powder was fluidizing... On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones: If you are filling a bucket with water at 1 liter/min., and draining it at 0.99 l/min, it will take awhile, but will fill up and eventually overflow. Question: Could the quiescence be something as simple as heat not being extracted fast enough from the Ni-core material and it eventually builds up to begin melting the Ni tubercles, slowly quenching the 'active area'? If so, then my initial thoughts don't apply and it is an engineering problem. -Mark From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance On 24 January 2012 19:40, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree that they must have a well designed and functioning control unit to prevent meltdown. If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m
RE: [Vo]:Problem with flow calorimetry in Defkalion system
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:19 PM 1/24/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: I believe they want professional organizations. I'm a professional! All we need to do is organize! Oh well, so much for that idea! Getting the Collective organized would be more difficult that herding cats... :-) -m
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
Can't remember, but it was either me or Axil. what's important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in! The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to 'see' what the picture is all about??? -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark - I thought you found the entanglement paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the depleted H2 can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: Stated simply, quiescence involves too much depletion in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Re: the statement, .and *you* have already found papers suggestive. I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, this is important. Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath
RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source
Chan has put up a website, but there's nothing there yet. claims he's too busy to engage in conversations. http://chanfusionpower.chan.host-ed.me/ -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MgH2 as hydrogen source Jay, Interesting idea, but Chan raises many red flags. Are there pictures? Video? Website? Can you explain how MgH2 would relate to QM in particular? From: Jay Caplan I'd like to solicit comments from the list re the Chan/Phen/Ortiz postings using MgH2 as H source http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion as it would pertain to QM theory, to thermonuclear processes, and to the noted 'quiescence.'
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance
No complaints here Axil. as far as I can recall, your postings have a high SNR, very little repetition, good links to references. Like Horace, you tend to ignore the non-technical discussions, and seem to like working on a theoretical understanding. That's great! As far as the 'indiscretion' is concerned, if it was directed at Eff or even Shaun, they violated vortex rules numerous times, so they had it coming. don't worry about it, just keep on thinkin' and postin'. -m From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance snip Best regards to all: I am happy to still be here having narrowly avoided the kill list. I apologize for a singular, ill-advised, and unintentional indiscretion humbly begging forgiveness with an earnest plea for redemption if that helps. Axil
RE: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled
Mary, Certain people are not 'suggesting', Mary, they are STATING it as FACT. That is what I object to; do you even know the difference??? You have made similar speculative statements before about me and I have thoroughly shown how the FACTS show differently, and yet you repeat your speculations about me. Every time I presented the facts to show that I have contributed to both the PROs and CONs of various issues, something a *rational* skeptic would do, as opposed to someone like yourself who uses repetition and then ignores when her speculations are shown to be false via facts, and repeats those false speculations several more times. I invite others to go ahead and use the web-interface to this forum and do a search on my postings and see for yourselves. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Mark why are you so defensive of Rossi? Do you have skin in this game? I bet he's like Jed. He so badly wants Rossi and Defkalion to be real, he gets his feelings hurt when anyone suggests they may in fact be lying criminals,.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi lies again to cover his data fraud
Shaun, You do realize that the RFG was not used in the first several E-Cat demos, aren't you? Oh, that's right, how could you??? Since you just swooped in and started barfing your accusations and speculations all over the place before doing your homework! Not unlike Mary, but at least she is a bit more cautious in how she does it so she can maintain at least some modicum of credibility. The issue of high-frequency components not being picked up by certain test instruments is well known by this Forum's members, and has been mentioned lng ago; many members in this forum have considerable expertise with electronics, test equipment and a good grounding in physics. I personally have several pieces of high-end test equipment, including an o'scope that has a 600Mhz bandwidth... you do know what that is, don't you??? Many Vortex members were aware of the issue that hi-freq components could cause lower than actual power measurements long before FP's announcement of Cold Fusion in 1989. Your *suggestion* as to how Rossi might have fed power to the E-Cat, is ONLY a POSSIBILITY. For some reason, your distorted way of thinking IMMEDIATELY DRAWS THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE MUST BE THE CASE... That is pathological, plain and simple. The only way to convert a possibility into fact is to measure it with the proper instruments... until that is done, it is only ONE possibility out of two or more. The only rational thing to do when faced with the situation we have is to simply wait it out and see what happens... which is pretty much what the consensus was by mid-year. -m -Original Message- From: Shaun Taylor [mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi lies again to cover his data fraud On 23/01/2012 6:14 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Shaun, you are in error. I have examined your pictures and like Mary, I do not see the significance of the goop you are referring to. BUT ... For the sake of discussion, I accept your premise that the goop was placed there so that Tout can be higher than it would have been. First point, Jed was not there. Ok so lets move forward on the assumption Rossi had placed the sensor to generate a higher than reality Tout. As the delta T was at best 10 deg C, a bias of 6 or 7 deg C would say there was no excess during the power applied phase. Then the heaters were disconnected and the RFG was engaged. Here I see 2 avenues to apply power during the self sustain mode. Via the RFG leads which could be a high DC voltage with a small AC ripple. This would show up on a AC amp meter as a small current with the DC supplying the secret heating. This job could be split between the Small Blue Box (SBB) AC heater excitation. It could also generate a DC output with a small AC ripple. It amazes me with all the brains in that room and with the future of LENR credibility on the line, NO ONE brought a portable digital oscilloscope and looked at what the RFG and the SBB were ACTUALLY generating. Digital meters are well known to under report current and voltage from complex non sinusoidal wave shapes. But instead of doing proper checking on what was ACTUALLY being fed into the Ecat, they relied on Rossi. Well they got taken for a ride. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group
Bill, There are many new-comers to the Collective due to vortex-l being mentioned on one or more of the websites covering the whole Rossi/E-Cat fiasco... and because of that, there have been numerous requests for references, which of course Vorts, and mostly Jed, have kindly provided links. So the idiotic excuse that Mary uses to avoid reducing her ignorance level is suspicious to say the least... links have been provided... she's just too lazy, or purposely ignoring them. Perhaps she could use the excuse that there just are so many postings to read thru... but wait, SHE is the reason for that. She is by far the queen of useless postings (now a total of 907 since only 11/10/2011, only two months!)... to say 'prolific' is an understatement, unfortunately she is prolifically repetitious. You also need to look at Shaun and Eff's postings... Thanks for looking into this and hopefully restoring some rational discussion and a strong signal to the Collective... -Mark -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Mary Yugo wrote: It is absolutely inane to ask critics to read the literature. You think we have nothing better to do than to spend time with unlimited quantities of inadequate and difficult to understand papers? Certainty that LENR critics should be ignorant of LENR evidence? Hm. And applying negative labels to papers never read, in order to excuse any need to read them? That's really insane. That's flamer crap, a totally blatant symptom of irrational, emotion-based pseudoscience generally called pathological skepticism or pseudo-skepticism. Rational, scientific people don't do that stuff, even by mistake. It's your job as proponent of this technology to choose the few papers, in any exist, maybe two or three best ones, for us to read. No, it's the critic's job to know the topic before judging. It's the basic method of science: judging *after* inspecting evidence, thus avoiding emotional bias leading to data selection error. Really, this is like finding an odd restaurant critic who believes that going to numerous restaurants is Just Not Done, and that all restaurants should deliver food to the restaurant reviewer's office. This attitude is a huge red-flag for the pretend-scientist... to already have judged (perhaps based only on concensus-following, not on personal study?) then to find perfectly sensible reasons to not read read on the topic they're judging. Very tricky. It should be papers that show at least a watt of CLEARLY and PROPERLY measured excess heat with no infusion of fresh fuel, running vastly longer -- orders of magnitude longer -- than a chemical reaction or stored heat could provide. And you leap to the conclusion that no such papers exist? Amazing. THAT is what Rossi failed to do. THAT is what you have failed to point us to. And it's your job as the proponent to do the pointing. It is not our job to go rummaging through all the stuff. This above, this is the stereotyped attack of the Scoffer/flamer/troll. It's what they always try, over numerous instances starting back in 1989 on Compuserve. Giving such people some research papers (or pointing out books and reference articles) falls right into the dishonest rhetorical trap they've prepared for their victim. Don't do it. Their request for papers is fake. It's Trolling, it's a 'politician' ploy. Think a moment: a rational critic of LENR would already know the field; at the very least have read the pro/con books, found reading lists, reviewed recommended papers, etc. A troll instead twists the debate around, attacking with utter confidence based on their own false certainty, then blaming the victim of the attack for not having done the critic's background work for them. And if the victim refuses to fall for it, they can say See, they wouldn't send me those papers! Making a victim of your attack look bad? And convincing onlookers that the attacker is the wronged party? That's an elegant ploy taken right from the con-artist list; from the political arena, and is quite disgusting from the standpoint of the extreme honesty required throughout science. And when done habitually, skillfully, it's a huge flashing sign saying THIS IS A TROLL. Sometimes an intellectually honest, sharp person will make an occasional slip into very twisted dishonesty. This above does not resemble such a case. You have no idea how many papers describe the results you say have never been published. Anyone who has read the literature can see that you are wrong. Really? You think it's some sort of universal stupidity or pernicious viciousness that prevents the majority of nuclear scientists and physicists No, they use exactly the same excuses that you're using right now. That's how these
RE: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled
Shaun, I suggest you take a month to read ALL the postings since last January, and you'll realize how asinine your statement is -- you are completely ignorant of just how much rational debate has gone on about Rossi and the demos. This forum had noticed, and discussed and debated ad naseum, pretty much ALL the issues that Mary keeps repeating, including Rossi's past, DGT, problems with the demos, etc, etc, etc. I was the one who first brought up a concern over the placement of the heat exchanger's output side thermocouple! You've got to have a really warped way of thinking if you think that's being defensive of Rossi! Oh, wait, you've just come here without having read the last year of postings so how could you know that I bring up Pro and Con??? NO, of course you couldn't know because you are so woefully ignorant of that has transpired on this forum the past year!!! People even did some modeling, no not the bikini-type modeling, and even FEM to try to extract as much as they could out of what data we did have... you do know what FEM is don't you??? The fact that I bring up BOTH things that might support what Rossi is claiming, AND things which do not, is what a rational, open-minded skeptic does... not the clearly emotional, overzealous and borderline pathological way in which you try to ram things down our throats... do I need to count the number of times you've called Rossi a liar... in only a few days? I think it's obvious who is rational and who is obsessed. No, I have no skin in the game and wouldn't consider investing at this time due to the inconclusiveness of the demos... A decision which I had reached by late March, Early April of last year; LONG BEFORE you or Eff or Mary came to save the lot of us because we are too stupid to think for ourselves. Go get laid and do something useful like water the fish... I OBJECT to the innuendo and speculations that you and Eff have been spewing on this forum for several days, even after it has been pointed out to you that the forum is PRIMARILY concerned with the scientific/technical aspects of unusual claims. If you and Eff and Mary want to warn the world about scams, go to it... more power to ya... just not on this forum. We don't need your amateurish reasoning, as stated before, nearly all the questionable issues were already beaten to death by April. This forum has people on it immensely more competent that you, Eff or Mary on scientific/technical matters, and they aren't shy about pointing out problems or inconsistencies, and possible scams. -Mark -Original Message- From: Shaun Taylor [mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled On 23/01/2012 5:56 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Thank you Susan for triggering a major point about the so-called skeptics, now obviously fitting the definition of 'trolls', that have been spewing their BS for that last several days. If you guys and gals are s concerned about helping prevent people who might invest in this scam, don't you think your time would have been better spent trying to get in contact with Ampenergo to alert them to the big mistake that they have made?? Why you're at it, why don't you contact Rossi's licensee that is in the UK??? Yeah, warn them too! That way, you could save untold numbers of brainless dupes who might be contacted by these other licensees!!! You'd be heros!!! But NO, you'd rather waste your time spewing ridicule and accusations about business/personality issues on a technical/scientific discussion forum.. Now that makes a whole sh*tload of sense, doesn't it. -Mark I have emailed them. No reply as yet. Mark why are you so defensive of Rossi? Do you have skin in this game? Shaun
RE: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked.
Hi Jouni, Don’t know if the software, which is quite old, can do what you request, however, when the Collective’s toilet gets backed up with turds, Mr. Bill (Beaty) comes in to unplug and flush the toilet… so, it should last for awhile. -Mark From: Jouni Valkonen [mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. This is great, I just cleaned my inbox from about 700 unread messages. I hope that we will get more quality and less quantity in near future. If someone is too active and produces too little meaningful content, could we issue a warning system, that unless a poster reduces his/her posting frequency to one mail per day, he/she will be banned? My opinion still is, that voicing negative opinions is not bad itself, but flooding my inbox with meaningless and nonconstructive 'trolling' is the problem. –Jouni On 24 January 2012 04:27, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:20 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Thank you for your recent cleaning efforts, Bill. I love watching the water vortex after pushing the handle. T
RE: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked.
ChemE, I think most of us have a healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to Rossi, and that is always in the back of our minds, but the whole purpose is to keep an open-mind, ask ourselves 'what if.' and run with that to see where is leads. engage in discussions, see things from different perspectives.. It's all good when the overall goal is exploration, learning and thinking outside the box. The difference between the skeptics here and those that just got flushed, rest their souls, is, just because you say you're a LENR believer doesn't make you oblivious to facts that contradict that leaning. i.e., although we feel strongly that LENR is real, and therefore there was a good chance that Rossi was on to something, we are still able to see the discrepancies and contradictions. that's *rational* skepticism. This comes about by the collective wisdom of the Collective. there are strong enough personalities in the Collective that prevent total belief taking over, and rational levels of belief/skepticism ultimately prevail. Looking forward to some interesting weeks and months ahead! -Mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 6:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:REMOVING RULE2 VIOLATORS, 'subscribe' blocked. Phew, I made it. I'll come clean. I am an LENR believer A Rossi Sceptic (hopefully he will hire some PR help and in the end be recognized for what he has discovered) A Defkalion hopeful - glad to hear they have opened up independent testing. That should get widespread recognition of the potential of the technology. Paradigm shift. Hopefully start of a cleaner planet. I had a dream I built an LENR reactor to heat my pool year round at any temperature I want. I think I will do that. On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, William Beaty wrote: Vortex traffic temporarily suspended. Getting everyone's attention. OK, back on. I'll leave subscribe turned off for weeks/months, unsubscribe remains active. Email me directly for problems, suggestions. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:New class of electron interactions in quantum systems
Now that those pesky, annoying trolls have been flushed. oh, better be careful since my SO is of Scandanavian descent, and just loves the little buggers.. We can get back to the fun stuff! New class of electron interactions in quantum systems http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-class-electron-interactions-quantum.html and these two statements smacked me upside the head. Importantly, by applying a strong magnetic field, the researchers were able to tune this effect to eliminate the spin-spin interactions while preserving the orbital-orbital interactions. By tuning the effect in two different symmetries of the fundamental state of the system.we have observed a symmetry crossover identical to those seen in high-energy physics, says Tettamanzi. This is kind of interesting as well. but note the wording 'apparent violation', The idea here is to create a current flowing through a nanostructure without applying a voltage between the leads, but by applying varying potentials at one or more gates of the transistor, in an apparent violation of Ohm's law. More information: The paper will be published this week in Physical Review Letters (online on January 26), but can be viewed online now at arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2977 -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion is open for testing as from now
A few thoughts come to mind. I think this forum can put together a team that would do a great job of testing. I know who would NOT be a good choice: - NOT a university that has any involvement with hot fusion, CERN, etc. - NOT a govt agency; can't trust them to be honest, or to do it efficiently. - NOT a major corporation either; for the same reasons as above. - SRI/McKubre, since they already have at least some support from their management. - Bockris at Texas AM. but think he retired. -Mark On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Douglas Hill hil...@lemoyne.edu wrote: If we could pick any team in the world to do this testing, who would you trust? Who would be the Super Star team of scientists, skeptics and journalists who would be the most credible? On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:14 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/files/2012-01-23_Independent_Testing_on_Hype rion_Reactors.pdf Interesting to say the least. Who will take up the challenge? -- Patrick
RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Shaun states as fact: He [Rossi] has been caught working with licensees to take green family investor money despite saying he would never do this. I think I have read all the postings so far, and Shaun was specifically asked, I think twice, by others if there was any evidence that *Rossi* himself has *specifically acknowledged* that the 'licensee' in Australia was indeed legitimate, or had all the statements of Rossi's involvement been made by the licensee, and not Rossi??? It is a real possibility that the licensee is making false statements about having licensed Rossi's technology for Australia, when in fact they have no such contract. So far, I have not seen any confirmation that Rossi is even aware of the licensee that held the investor meeting which Mr. Bryce attended. The licensee stating that there was supposed to be a Skype session with Rossi is not proof that Rossi agreed to any such thing. If that evidence has been provided, I'd appreciate it if you could please provide the link to the vortex posting that proves Rossi is aware of, and working with, that licensee... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Agreed, wholeheartedly.. There was a thermocouple in the E-Cat and the highest I remember it ever getting was ~108degC. Anyone who claims that it was anywhere near 150 needs to provide the proof. I don't think even Yugo would try to float that asinine suggestion. or would you Mary? -Mark From: Wolf Fischer [mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. _ From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
So here was Shaun's acknowledging the FACT that he doesn't know, or have evidence that Rossi is even aware of the Australian licensee (Millin): === *While I have no proof*, I would expect a few of those going to the meeting would have emailed Rossi to check on the validity of Millin's claim to be the Australian licensee. No one would invest money with Millin without that being made very clear and at least sighting the necessary executed documents to back up Millin's claim. Shaun == So it is perfectly clear, from Shaun's own words, that *While I have no proof*... So when he then states as a fact, that, He [Rossi] has been caught working with licensees... SHAUN gets caught in an irrefutable LIE!! A fabrication! What a friggin' hypocrite... -Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Shaun states as fact: He [Rossi] has been caught working with licensees to take green family investor money despite saying he would never do this. I think I have read all the postings so far, and Shaun was specifically asked, I think twice, by others if there was any evidence that *Rossi* himself has *specifically acknowledged* that the 'licensee' in Australia was indeed legitimate, or had all the statements of Rossi's involvement been made by the licensee, and not Rossi??? It is a real possibility that the licensee is making false statements about having licensed Rossi's technology for Australia, when in fact they have no such contract. So far, I have not seen any confirmation that Rossi is even aware of the licensee that held the investor meeting which Mr. Bryce attended. The licensee stating that there was supposed to be a Skype session with Rossi is not proof that Rossi agreed to any such thing. If that evidence has been provided, I'd appreciate it if you could please provide the link to the vortex posting that proves Rossi is aware of, and working with, that licensee... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Thx Robert, I stand corrected. From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog During the September test (with the large steam release in question) the temperature exceeded 133C... You can see it in the video. During the October 6th test, the temperature reaches 123.8C at the onset of self-sustaining mode, and it drops to 103C by the end of the test. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+Octo ber+6+%28pdf%29
RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Shaun, Picking data apart is one thing, but when you choose to state, AS A FACT, that Rossi is knowingly working with Millin, you damn well better have direct evidence (e.g., a contract with Rossi's sig, or video of Rossi interacting with Millin). It is perfectly clear that that is NOT the case here, as you state, *If* he doesn't have a commercial relation with Rossi, then he *may* find himself in court as only a total fool would do that without a commercial arrangement in place. So, it is a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation that Millin IS taking that chance, and Rossi is not involved at all, or is not aware of Millin's past. IF Rossi is aware of Millin's past and has indeed entered into a contract with him, then I would agree with your conclusions... that is the grounded, objective reasoning that any rational skeptic would take. I am also assuming here that Millin has been caught in scams before, or was that someone else whose name begins with 'M'??? -Mark -Original Message- From: Shaun Taylor [mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. On 23/01/2012 10:47 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: So here was Shaun's acknowledging the FACT that he doesn't know, or have evidence that Rossi is even aware of the Australian licensee (Millin): Mark, since then I saw the slide show and other data about that event on Millin's site. He openly advertised this meeting on his web site and in the newspapers. He was soliciting investor funds and taking Ecat orders at the meeting Bryce torpedoed. If he doesn't have a commercial relation with Rossi, then he may find himself in court as only a total fool would do that without a commercial arrangement in place. Why are you attacking the messenger? Rossi is the proven serial liar and data fraudster. He has burnt many people with his lies and data fraud. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Mary, have you forgotten that at least one of the principles in Ampenergo has worked with Rossi before, or was in business with him, and if they gave Rossi $ to secure a licensing spot, so what? Has Ampenergo held investor sessions and taken money from the dupes of the world, or was it their own $? Where's your PROOF that Ampenergo has taken $ from anyone?? I would bet that it was the organizers of Amp that put up the money. I would also bet that Millin has NO contract with Rossi and was just trying to separate people from their money using Rossi as the bait. Agreed, a slime-ball of a person, but they do exist. So, do NOT hold up Ampenergo as the same situation as Millin's biz in Australia. there is no comparison; no proof that Amp is attempting the same thing. With that, and the fact that Shaun still cannot provide ANY solid proof that Rossi is aware of what Millin is doing, leaves the situation thus: - Millin may very well be running a scam, and warning people of that fact is admirable - There is NO evidence that Ampenergo is engaging in investment dog-n-pony shows like Millin - There is NO evidence that Rossi is aware of what Millin is doing Those are the facts, at this time. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Shaun, Picking data apart is one thing, but when you choose to state, AS A FACT, that Rossi is knowingly working with Millin, you damn well better have direct evidence (e.g., a contract with Rossi's sig, or video of Rossi interacting with Millin). I am also not clear on whether someone is taking money (or was proposing to) for Rossi or for themselves. It's pretty nasty either way but one of the ways doesn't implicate Rossi. Rossi did get money from Ampenergo --that's a fact as per an interview in NyTeknik. And it was substantial. How many other people and places he got money from, I know of no evidence about but I betcha it's many and plenty most likely. NyTeknik interview about Ampenergo: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3179019.ece From the article: How much do you pay for the agreement? Cassarino: Unfortunately that's confidential. Have you paid anything to Rossi yet? Cassarino: Yes we have. How much? Cassarino: Let's put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation. Have you searched new funding? Cassarino: Absolutely, we are in current conversations with some very large companies here in the US and South America, some investment companies, because it's not just a technology we're creating in the industry here. There are a lot of pieces that really need to come together to build this matrix, lots of pieces of the puzzle that need to have some strategic thinking done, as how we transition into a new energy source. That's what makes this very exciting. So you know there's never enough money to make everything happen. (sorry, formatting of the quote may be off and WYS is not WYG)... gmail is weird that way. If there is emphasis on there's never enough money it's mine.
RE: [Vo]:there is a BNE - Rossi connection
Since you failed to rebut my assumption that Millin is guilty of running at least one or more scams, obviously lying to perpetrate those scams, then is that assumption correct? -Original Message- From: Shaun Taylor [mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:there is a BNE - Rossi connection Interesting comment by Sol Millin on the BNE site http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page There is certainly no radiation coming from the device or any radwaste accumulated in the device. This has been confirmed to me in writing by Andrea Rossi. Another Smoking Gun for Rossi? Shaun
RE: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
You used some interview with NyTeknik to claim that that was indeed the case, so I was simply assuming that your reporting of what went down in that interview was accurate, and proposing what may have occurred between Rossi and Amp; in addition to pointing out that they already knew each other, and had been in business together... so NO gullible-investor money was taken because Amp guys KNEW Rossi, and if they wanted to risk their $, then that is their decision. I guess we have to now spread the scamming conspiracy to all principles of Ampenergo as well... including the guy who once worked for the U.S. Dept Of Energy... oh my, proof that the whole f**king US Govt is in on the scam Oh no, Mr. Bill! -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. On 1/22/12, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary, have you forgotten that at least one of the principles in Ampenergo has worked with Rossi before, or was in business with him, and if they gave Rossi $ to secure a licensing spot, so what? So Rossi has received money in advance from investors. Has Ampenergo held investor sessions and taken money from the dupes of the world, or was it their own $? Where's your PROOF that Ampenergo has taken $ from anyone?? Well, they had to get the money for Rossi from somewhere unless they printed it. I don't understand your point. I am not comparing Ampenergo with anyone. I am only pointing out that Rossi, despite his protestations to the contrary, did receive investor money.
RE: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled
Thank you Susan for triggering a major point about the so-called skeptics, now obviously fitting the definition of 'trolls', that have been spewing their BS for that last several days. If you guys and gals are s concerned about helping prevent people who might invest in this scam, don't you think your time would have been better spent trying to get in contact with Ampenergo to alert them to the big mistake that they have made?? Why you're at it, why don't you contact Rossi's licensee that is in the UK??? Yeah, warn them too! That way, you could save untold numbers of brainless dupes who might be contacted by these other licensees!!! You'd be heros!!! But NO, you'd rather waste your time spewing ridicule and accusations about business/personality issues on a technical/scientific discussion forum.. Now that makes a whole sh*tload of sense, doesn't it. -Mark From: Susanna Gipp [mailto:susan.g...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 11:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ampenergo's email is disabled May I suggest you to call the office that shares the same address ? ((603) 668 7000). ? Coldstream Office Park 116 South River Road | Bedford, Bedford NH Karl Norwood must have some info since he's both the owner of the reale-state company above and a member of Ampenergo directory board. Hera a couple of pointers. http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer#Am pEnergo http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/more-details-about-ampenergo-deal-available Maybe, if you get an human response, could be better not to mention right away ampenergo but first to ask to get Karl Norwood to the phone. Please, if you call, don't forget to post here what you find out. Thanks!
RE: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group
When it comes to Rossi and the E-Cat, of course they can’t Craig… and that’s a *fact* that they are choosing to ignore. Gee, sounds a bit pathological to me… Now, *IF* a plaintiff does come forward sometime in the future, then we may have real evidence of wrongdoing, depending on the circumstances in the complaint. -m From: Craig Brown [mailto:cr...@overunity.co] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group So basically you STILL can't point to a single complaint from a Steorn or Rossi investor. I rest my case. Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: Mon, January 23, 2012 2:56 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On 1/22/12, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: In 5 years of listening to you ENDLESSLY complain about investors being ripped off and people being scammed you have been unable to point to even ONE single instance of someone who has made a complaint. You talk of victims like they are everywhere when in reality you can't point to one single investor in Rossi or Steorn who agrees with what you say. Actually, if you follow even Sterling Allan's enthusiast web site, you see people complaining of ripoffs all the time. Apparently even the ever critical Jed Rothwell lost $100 to an Aussie type of guy. And 21 million Euros went to Steorn which produced grandiose claims (need I remind you of always works all the time, 0.5 W/cc power density, African pumps, 550HP motors, self charging Orbos', Orbos in cell phones, university tests, etc. etc. etc.?) and nothing else-- no product, no sales and no independent tests except the few that failed dismally. Bedini sells magnetic motors that are supposed to be free energy but always require batteries. Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto were busted for felonies regarding their HHO scheme, Carl Tiley is a fugitive under indictment in Tenessee and you were thoroughly bamboozled by all of them at the time including something as silly as Mylow's joke. It's a bit early for Rossi's investors to complain. Give them a bit of time. The reality is that many companies take investment money that doesn't yield a return. This is not confined simply to the world of new energy technologies. The reality is that NO investment in any free energy claim has ever yielded a return-- it absolutely NEVER has and yet everytime a new one comes out, people like you and Sterling Allan push them on your web sites despite a complete absence of proper testing. With friends like you and Allan, Rossi needs no enemies.
RE: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1
Dam you Jones!! We have company coming over in 30 mins and I can't read this yet :-) BTW, the fact that, your posting earlier that two protons can attract each other under rare and specific conditions would be *expected* under my qualitative model expressed this past year. Man, I hope the dinner guests don't stay too long... -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Verisimilitude, lies, and true lies Part 1 Here is a non-trolling shocker: The so called unit at the base of everything we know as stuff (matter) which is the atomic mass unit (a.m.u.) is a lie. That's right - at least it is a small lie in the sense that after all these years, it has no firm value when you look close enough. No one at CERN knows exactly what it is, or how variable it can be, after it is pumped down, so to speak. It is also a true lie since we now use an assigned value to define itself (by convention) but it is a lie nevertheless. We give it a value that is used to calibrate the instruments that detect it so it CANNOT vary by much. This is partly due to the inconvenient truth that the atomic mass unit is not exactly equivalent to an average between the mass of a proton (1.673 10-27 kg) and a neutron(1.675 10-27 kg). Essentially it is a variable within a close range, so that we overlook the problem of not having a true value. Plus most of the known universe is hydrogen, with no neutron - so one must ask - why should it be an average anyway? Plus (HUGE) when you start looking at raw data - the mass of proton is NOT always the value we suspect without recalibration - and in practice, the detectors of whatever variety - are essentially calibrated back to give what is suspected to be the known value. How convenient. Sometimes they are way-off without calibration. This all gets back to verisimilitude, as a philosophical matter, but it has a lot of practical meaning when we begin to dwell on hydrogen energy anomalies. That is because mass is convertible to energy, and the proton has such a large amount of potential energy, roughly a GeV, that it can provide thousands of times the energy of combustion, and still be hydrogen. IOW it has variable mass within a range and it is not a particular tight range, when the excess is multiplies by c2. This also relates to some of the mass of a proton being NOT quantized. Quarks are quantized but even their mass is at best a wild guess, insofar as far a firm values go and there is much more there than quarks anyway. More on that later, but write this off as another level of verisimilitude. BTW, the a.m.u. or atomic mass unit is actually smaller than the average of a proton and a neutron, in practice by 1% or so - since some mass is said to be involved in the binding energy of the nucleus. But hello ! ... even that is a lie, since if it were binding energy instead of force, then there would be a time delineated component and there isn't really. The proton does not decay (as best we can tell). More on this in later postings. My angle, as many vorticians are aware - is finding new kind of protonic nuclear reaction - one that does not involved very much radiation or transmutation. Working back from results in Ni-H as the defining question of our energy future - that forces one to reconsider nuclear and look at subnuclear. Verisimilitude is a bitch. Pardon my French (or is it Italian) on that one, and Vada a bordo, CAZZO! Rossi may be taking on water faster than Mitt changes major policies, but the Maru Ni-H is getting more buoyancy by the hour. And that ain't all hot air. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson
Over at the forum at PeakOil.com is a posting by 'SeaGypsy' trying to start a Class Action suit against Rossi... (see below) http://peakoil.com/forums/class-action-vs-rossi-ecat-et-al-t64094-30.html But he clearly admits as to not having invested or 'lost' anything to Rossi. I don't know what the laws are in the land of Oz, but in the USofA, if you can't prove damages, you have no case. For all we know, 'SeaGypsy' *IS* Greg, and is trying to scam people by getting them to contribute to a bogus Class Action suit! I certainly support Eff Wivakeef's, AKA blinkybill, efforts to pursue Greg in order to try to recoup his investment, and hopefully stop Greg from further scams, however, it is clear that he and SeaGypsy know absolutely *nothing* about LENR/CF and Rossi, and have called it a scam despite their total ignorance of what has transpired to date. They probably are not aware of lenr-canr.org, of the peer-reviewed pubs on it, the high-quality work done by SRI, SPAWAR, NASA and many, many highly published scientists throughout the world. Their anger toward scams is obsessive, and blinding to what should/should not be ridiculed -- Greg, absolutely should; Rossi, maybe; CF/LENR absolutely NOT. -Mark = Class Action VS Rossi ECAT et al. by SeaGypsy Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:05 am Let this be the beginning. I have not put in one cent, but I bill at $100 an hour. i have spent about 10 hours studying the Rossi mumbo jumbo, so my hat is in for $1000 AUD or US is acceptable. Anyone else want to put their claim down here, in advance? The more the merrier and higher caliber pro-bono lawyer we may retain. These guys are soo, screwed. Lookout Carl, you are very likely to be on the prosecution subpoena. =
RE: [Vo]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith
Another concern was waste-water being poured down the drain -- if a nuclear reaction was occurring that water would be highly radioactive, Mr. Bryce said. It's pretty clear that Mr. Bryce didn't do his homework... at all! Woefully ignorant of anything about LENR/CF and the E-Cat demos. That's what he gets for not reading vortex-l! :-) Mr. Smith, I know several highly qualified techies who will be happy to give you a proper assessment... -m -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith At 04:05 PM 1/20/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: And later on : http://peakoil.com/forums/the-cold-fusion-thread-pt-4-merged-t63982-240.html #p1100188 Mystery blue box sank 'cold fusion' for Dick Smith BY: ANTHONY KLAN From: The Australian January 20, 2012 12:00AM . Mr Bryce said one of the most indicative signals that the technology was unlikely to perform as claimed was the presence of a large, unexplained blue box sitting adjacent to the invention, which was clearly a substantial power supply. He said Mr Rossi's results from the experiment -- three pages of data scrawled with handwritten corrections -- and the very shoddy set up of the device all suggested it didn't work. Another concern was waste-water being poured down the drain -- if a nuclear reaction was occurring that water would be highly radioactive, Mr Bryce said. [ Gee ... Bryce didn't look very far, it seems. Ah well. ]
RE: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson
Keef, over here in the states, the saying goes, Don't throw the baby (LENR) out with the bath-water (GOW). Where Rossi fits into that saying is debatable... -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Keef Versus Greg Watson I agree 100% with Mark on this. And it is not a fine point. The 'bad guys' are being confused in the dust of high body count. Keef - my advice to you - is to get your act together on your real adversary. It is GOW and not LENR. LENR is essentially correct, as science. Yes, it rests on the vagaries of QM, but it may carry QM to the altar and not the other way around. Check out the LENR/CANR site, because you lose most of your allies if you try to go too far with this. IOW, to be precise - you buddy Greg is a jerk who just happened to back into this technology as a vehicle for his own scam, not a contributor to the technology in any way. Jones -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Over at the forum at PeakOil.com is a posting by 'SeaGypsy' trying to start a Class Action suit against Rossi... (see below) http://peakoil.com/forums/class-action-vs-rossi-ecat-et-al-t64094-30.html But he clearly admits as to not having invested or 'lost' anything to Rossi. I don't know what the laws are in the land of Oz, but in the USofA, if you can't prove damages, you have no case. For all we know, 'SeaGypsy' *IS* Greg, and is trying to scam people by getting them to contribute to a bogus Class Action suit! I certainly support Eff Wivakeef's, AKA blinkybill, efforts to pursue Greg in order to try to recoup his investment, and hopefully stop Greg from further scams, however, it is clear that he and SeaGypsy know absolutely *nothing* about LENR/CF and Rossi, and have called it a scam despite their total ignorance of what has transpired to date. They probably are not aware of lenr-canr.org, of the peer-reviewed pubs on it, the high-quality work done by SRI, SPAWAR, NASA and many, many highly published scientists throughout the world. Their anger toward scams is obsessive, and blinding to what should/should not be ridiculed -- Greg, absolutely should; Rossi, maybe; CF/LENR absolutely NOT. -Mark = Class Action VS Rossi ECAT et al. by SeaGypsy Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:05 am Let this be the beginning. I have not put in one cent, but I bill at $100 an hour. i have spent about 10 hours studying the Rossi mumbo jumbo, so my hat is in for $1000 AUD or US is acceptable. Anyone else want to put their claim down here, in advance? The more the merrier and higher caliber pro-bono lawyer we may retain. These guys are soo, screwed. Lookout Carl, you are very likely to be on the prosecution subpoena. = attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg
No Mary, go read the barrage of postings to catch up. after all, that is what you expect us to do with your barrage of repetitious postings! Frankly, your recent lack of postings has been a much welcome reprieve. -mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: After a bit of digging around the web, looking for commonality in the posts of the two personas, it certainly seems likely that AG is Greg Watson. I would concede that everything I've found is circumstantial, and that a string titled, Goodbye Greg was probably premature. Further, if they are indeed the same person, would that preclude acceptance on Vortex? I understand that some Vortexians may deserve an apology and restitution, but I think that his posts have been valuable, albeit some have been too quick to jump to conclusions. For those of us who came lately, can you summarize the evidence that this is the same person who apparently defrauded people by taking money for SMOT kits?
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's behavior is more tragic than deceptive
Have to agree with Mary on this one. The only NI statement's that I've seen were of a general nature. NI has a lot of customers in the high energy physics world, and other hi-tech environments. I've used they data acquisition modules a number of times (love the LAN-based high resolution DAQ module), and can see why they've been able to get their products into hi-tech areas. I highly doubt that NI would be actively involved, on a daily basis, with Rossi. Perhaps they would send an Applications Engineer to his location to advise them on proper use and configuration of their equipment, but that is all. It is even more unlikely that they would make any kind of endorsement. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's behavior is more tragic than deceptive On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Who knows what to make of it. I am sure that NI is really working on it. Their VP wrote to Forbes, after all. Or they were working on it . . . Maybe Rossi threw them out. It would be better to be more precise. The VP of NI wrote a news release of a general nature saying that they assist many companies in fitting control systems to their products including Rossi's. That makes Rossi a customer of NI's and nothing more. And there are millions of those. Nothing about working with NI or what the VP wrote lends the slightest credibility to Rossi's claims.
RE: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg
The dog probably ate his thumb-drive… Bad Einstein! Bad! From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 1:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Goodbye Greg From: Eff Wivakeef Ø Please note that service of the Bankruptcy Notice and Judgment/Order addressed to Gregory Oran WATSON has not yet been effected. OK, this is your attempt to collect on the legal judgment against Watson, correct? What about the “Green and Gold” company- Did you try to collect against them, or does he operate the business out of the house where no one answers the door? Maybe they are used to dodging paper servers, who knows? I guess his fabled “Board” that he often refers to in postings - includes the dog. Was it by any chance a Golden Retriever named “Einstein”?
RE: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
I didn't quite finish the analogy... Imagine the wheel of a car being an electron, which is perfectly balanced and rotates perfectly. Now add a lead weight (a quantum of heat), and the wheel now is wobbling all around since it is 'out of balance'. That in turn causes the entire car (atom) to shimmy. The glue holding the lead weight can't stand the stress and the lead weight is ejected. That quantum of heat then 'hits' or 'gets absorbed into' some other subatomic element, perhaps of the same atom, or a neighboring atom, and causes that one to be temporarily 'out of balance' and causes that atom to vibrate for a few attoseconds or so, but it too gets ejected. In what direction is it ejected? That too is more or less random for bulk matter. Thus, it makes perfect sense why QM is probability-based, and is so accurate when it comes to explaining things at the atomic scale. Now imagine billions of heat quanta constantly and randomly being shuffled from atom to atom... that's what's going on in bulk matter. -Mark
[Vo]:Slow-motion pictures of atoms and molecules... getting closer!
World's best metronome enables slow-motion pictures of atoms and molecules http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-world-metronome-enables-slow-motion-pict ures.html Well, science is getting close to being able to do the definitive experiment which I asked for earlier in the year. They just have to overcome this problem: With this short wavelength light pulses, it is possible to take flash photos of single molecules and atoms. However, the intense energy of each light pulse destroys the sample. And they are able to somewhat. Therefore, the slow-motion movie production of a molecular process requires the repetition of the same process with a fresh sample and *each picture is taken a bit later*. Well, that's a good try, but not sure it's accurate enough to do what I need. unfortunately. *When* they can take a single hydrogen atom, suspend it in a vacuum (using a magnetic field?), and then take their 'flash photos' of it with an attosecond shutter speed, then we will know what an electron *really* is.. And they might also need to be able to cause a slight delay of the shutter, a number of times, to cause it to match the phase of the electron oscillation. The abstract for the peer-reviewed article is here: Optical flywheels with attosecond jitter http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphoton.2011.326.ht ml Abstract It has been known for some time that the steady-state pulse propagating inside a mode-locked laser is the optical equivalent of a mechanical flywheel. By measuring the timing error spectrum between phase-locked optical pulse trains emitted from two nearly identical 10 fs Ti:sapphire lasers, we demonstrate a record low integrated timing error of less than 13 attoseconds, measured from d.c. to the Nyquist frequency of the pulse train, which is 41 MHz. This corresponds to the lowest high-frequency phase noise ever recorded of -203 dBc Hz-1 (assuming a 10 GHz carrier) for offset frequencies greater than 1 MHz. Such a highly uniform train of pulses will enable the synchronization of pump-probe experiments that measure the evolution dynamics of chemical and atomic processes evolving on femtosecond and attosecond timescales. The ultralow timing jitter of such pulse trains will also allow photonic analog-to-digital conversion of mid-infrared waveforms with a resolution of 6 bits. -Mark
[Vo]:mechanical-to-optical coupling
Gee, my serendipitous 'webbing' this eve has been quite interesting and fruitful. here's one more. I promise I'll go to bed after this one! Seeing the Quantum in Quantum Zero-Point Fluctuations http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/8 PDF for actual article being described: http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.033602 This statement made me think about the problem of how the 'missing' gammas are absorbed into the lattice as phonons: This approach yields relatively high-frequency mechanical resonances (with gigahertz-scale frequencies), which makes cooling easier and yields well-separated sidebands. The tight localization of modes also yields *very strong optomechanical couplings*. And especially this.. In addition, this setup allows a single mechanical resonance to be coupled to many distinct optical resonances. Would a gamma be considered 'optical'? I do not know whether the conditions which were present in the experiment above are present in LENR. so it may not be relevant. G'nite, -Mark
