Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford
On 11/22/16 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/technology/trump-tech-populism-automation/ QUOTE "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. There's going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford <https://econfuture.wordpress.com/about/>, author of Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. "What we're seeing is in large measure because of technology." Read Marshall McLuhan who hashed out many of the effects of new technology on humans and society in his books and videos. McLuhan observed that "when identity is threatened, violence occurs". Automation, digital technology, and eventually, cold fusion energy, obsolesces the institutions that grew from the previous environment of fossil fuels and literacy. The loss of "jobs" with the replacement of "roles", McLuhan's prediction, is happening now, and will continue. For instance, I have a "role" to play in the advocacy of breakthrough energy, but there is no job for me in that capacity. When people have more free time (as we all do when we become unemployed), they have to confront themselves: what do they now do with their time? This is startling for many, and requires a new mindset to navigate. That mindset is part of a new identity. Who likes change that much to want to swap their identity out? Not many - not me! Nevertheless, that is what we all have to do just about continuously nowadays. "Effects precede consequences." is another McLuhanism. I interpret this as understanding we are living the cold fusion lifestyle now. I am effectively unemployed, though still work my butt off at multiple part-time jobs just to pass off the minimum wage compensation to my creditors. The friction exists because although I am living the free lifestyle with the ability to choose what I want to do with my time, I am still forced to operate in the old environment where dependency on central services is a requirement for societal participation. It is exhausting, and causes debilitating tension. Yet it is from these "vortices" that the technology will emerge from. I really liked Harry's long ago post about Eno's "scenius" to give that idea another example. "Every technology creates a war." "War is education." "Education is war." These simple slogans hold a lot of meaning and insight into how we can respond better, and create the world we want with minimal friction. It's not happening that way now, but it could, and it will for some of us. I am hoping and wishing and praying for Breakthrough 2017 so as to accelerate this transition and start living the life I can only dream about. -- Ruby Carat The Left Coast Eureka, CA USA
Re: [Vo]:Morrison paper
Thanks for this paper, Jed. I like the timeline it holds. I am collecting timelines and dates for a history project. Ruby On 9/22/16 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I found a paper copy of this, and converted it. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MorrisonDRreviewofco.pdf - Jed -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles - The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium: (ColdFusionNow)
Hey Bob, you're a bit over my head here, so I'll pass on this one. That's why I make the movies, so I can understand! Ruby On 7/10/16 1:24 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Axil and Ruby— One feature of LENR that is neglected is the mechanism for distribution of nuclear scale energy to the material around the reaction site without destruction of the material by melting or mechanical deformation. Energetic particles with significant kinetic energy do not fit the bill, since they will cause undesirable electromagnet radiation—hard x-rays and higher energy EM radiation. This suggests to me that the entangled QM system that Axil often suggests is a key physical feature that allows the modification of electric and magnetic field energy to spin energy—I.E., the phonic orbital energy of lattice electrons of the entangled system. The nuclear kinetic energy of certain particles of the entangled system is given up to phonic energy—thermal energy—of the entangled lattice electrons. This happens at the same time as the more stable nucleons appear—He, Ni-64 or any more sable set of particles. In some cases the entangled system produces low energy radiation which gets absorbed as heat without escaping the confines of the reactor. Energy, spin and angular momentum must be conserved during the reaction, including the consideration of any EM radiation produced that escapes the entangled system, for example the blue light that Rossi claims to see or the muons claimed by others. The resonances associated with the many bodied system of the entangled system require engineering to provide LENR ambient conditions to support the changes of any entangled system, including its control. Axil’s sub atomic particle condensation is IMHO shorthand for the changes of particle types in an entangled system along with an increase in phonic energy of the electrons of the lattice—thermal energy. I have often called an entangled QM system a coherent system. I think they mean the same thing. Bob Cook Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 *From: *Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> *Sent: *Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:12 AM *To: *vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles - The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium: (ColdFusionNow) Rossi's transmutation results imply that the mechanism for nucleon transfer comes by way of energy transfer and sub atomic particle condensation inside the nucleus, and not particle transfer coming through the coulomb barrier.. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com <mailto:r...@hush.com>> wrote: THANK YOU Esa for giving those few seconds of sweet music. I can't wait to work with you more on the next movie. Love Love LOVE, Ruby On 7/9/16 3:16 AM, Esa Ruoho wrote: Hi guys! Any thoughts on this documentary? Ruby from ColdFusionNow used two of my tunes in it, briefly, and it is apparently a nice documentary or something. Here's some information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4 http://coldfusionnow.org/anomalous-effects-in-deuterated-systems-melvin-miles-the-correlation-of-excess-heat-and-helium/ /Anomalous Effects in Dueterated Systems/ documents the work of Dr. Melvin Miles, a US Navy electrochemist who first correlated the excess heat generated from palladium-deuterium systems with the production of helium as a nuclear product. /Anomalous Effects/ takes Cold Fusion Now! video to a new evolution with the addition of title music by the excellent Esa Ruoho a.k.a. Lackluster, an electronic musician based in Etelä-Suomi, Finland. I hope you found the sounds elevating as I did. Vist Esa’s website here <http://www.lackluster.org/> and purchase music by Esa at http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/. Your support is crucial to artists.-- --- http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 <tel:%2B358403703659> // skype:esajuhaniruoho // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/ <http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/> // iMessage: esaru...@gmail.com <mailto:esaru...@gmail.com> // -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles
Yes, I agree Jones, There are many hosts to the reaction, which by some logic should make the reaction independent of any host, (with regards to the common qualities of those hosts). In all cases, hydrogen is used, so I refer to hydrogen (D and H) as the fuel for the reaction. There is a basic disagreement on whether or not there is one mechanism that creates all the different effects, or, multiple mechanisms that create all the different effects. Several opinions have been expressed here, and I have my own opinion, but I try to keep it to myself and let the scientists duke it out. Neither am I an expert on nuclear reactions, but I think the reaction with Lithium that you are referring to also makes 2 helium per reaction, so that would mean that there would have to be even MORE helium measured to get the same amount of heat. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, the Helium-3 detected has been shown to be derived from the decay of tritium, which is another nuclear product observed, but not in amounts enough to account for the energy. I accept that as fact, though am not sure if everybody does. The Arata work suggests to me a situation where more tritium was made. Thank you again for liking the movie. It sure is a lot of fun making them. Ruby On 7/9/16 9:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: First, thanks to Ruby for such an amazing effort. As to the point about lithium-6 …. Yes, there are lithium-free reactions which show excess heat, no denying that. The gas-phase nanoscale systems of Arata-Zhang, Ahern and others find excess heat with no apparent lithium, no electrical input, and no gamma radiation. BUT these experiments (Arata at least) also found helium-3 in a repeatable ratio and much less helium-4 than with lithium electrolytic work ! This conflict and other divergent results is leading to the only possible conclusion about LENR - that there are more than one type of reaction, possibly many similar but differing reactions - and more than one type of positive outcome. Moreover, many of the experiments of Professor Dash showed excess heat and helium with NO palladium. That’s right, no palladium since titanium was used instead - and moreover Dash felt that titanium was more active than palladium in similar circumstances, BUT he did use lithium electrolyte ! Go figure. * * Hydrogen, the simplest element in the Universe is also the most complex in its interaction with other elements. ** *From:*Ruby > There exist Pd-D systems that make excess heat but do not use Lithium. Therefore, I conclude, following other scientists' reasoning, that Lithium is not required for the reaction. -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles
Thank you for watching Jed, I hope you enjoyed it. There exist Pd-D systems that make excess heat but do not use Lithium factually. I do not know whether Miles agrees or not with that fact. However, I do know that Miles disagrees that the effect is a surface effect. Yet I left in Storms discussion of the explanation of ~50% recovered helium as resulting from a surface effect despite Miles disagreement. I left it in, with Miles agreeing to my choice, because it helps to have others talking about this work so as to validate it. Storms gives *an* explanation, so I left that in. I would like to have interviewed others on their heat-helium work, or their thoughts on the findings, but it was not possible. Ruby On 7/9/16 9:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ruby <r...@hush.com <mailto:r...@hush.com>> wrote: There exist Pd-D systems that make excess heat but do not use Lithium. Therefore, I conclude, following other scientists' reasoning, that Lithium is not required for the reaction. I think that is what Mel Miles believes. It would be a little inappropriate to emphasize the lithium theory in a video that is mainly devoted to Miles' work, if he does not subscribe to that theory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles
Thank you Jones for watching this lengthy video, and for your comments, too. The movie is not a science paper, but more a lesson in procedure on how MIles did it. There exist Pd-D systems that make excess heat but do not use Lithium. Therefore, I conclude, following other scientists' reasoning, that Lithium is not required for the reaction. Still, I sat and talked with him and David French for 2 1/2 hours, but have to draw the line at less than 30 mins for youtube! (I'd prefer shorter, but what can you do with a topic as detailed as this?!) As a general overview, I think this video can educate students and investors on how experiments are done, and in this particular case, what happens to your career when you succeed in your research. Cold Fusion Now! videos seek to allow scientists in the field of LENR/cold fusion to tell their own story, and document their contributions through their own perspective. If they don't tell the story, someone else will. Thank you for your support. I am happy at the evolution of our videos. If I may say so, they are getting better and better! Ruby On 7/9/16 7:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This is very impressive and answers a lot of questions which were not being addressed before. Finally most of the objections of skeptics are addressed succinctly in one place by the leading expert. Long overdue. One minor complaint - with the lack of inclusion of selected details (since the target audience probably needs more information) is that the D+6Li reaction fits the evidence as well or better than D+D but was not even mentioned other than in a chart, and was ignored in the dialog. *From:*Esa Ruoho Hi guys! Any thoughts on this documentary? Ruby from ColdFusionNow used two of my tunes in it, briefly, and it is apparently a nice documentary or something. Here's some information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4 http://coldfusionnow.org/anomalous-effects-in-deuterated-systems-melvin-miles-the-correlation-of-excess-heat-and-helium/ -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA
Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles - The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium: (ColdFusionNow)
THANK YOU Esa for giving those few seconds of sweet music. I can't wait to work with you more on the next movie. Love Love LOVE, Ruby On 7/9/16 3:16 AM, Esa Ruoho wrote: Hi guys! Any thoughts on this documentary? Ruby from ColdFusionNow used two of my tunes in it, briefly, and it is apparently a nice documentary or something. Here's some information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4 http://coldfusionnow.org/anomalous-effects-in-deuterated-systems-melvin-miles-the-correlation-of-excess-heat-and-helium/ /Anomalous Effects in Dueterated Systems/ documents the work of Dr. Melvin Miles, a US Navy electrochemist who first correlated the excess heat generated from palladium-deuterium systems with the production of helium as a nuclear product. /Anomalous Effects/ takes Cold Fusion Now! video to a new evolution with the addition of title music by the excellent Esa Ruoho a.k.a. Lackluster, an electronic musician based in Etelä-Suomi, Finland. I hope you found the sounds elevating as I did. Vist Esa’s website here <http://www.lackluster.org/> and purchase music by Esa at http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/. Your support is crucial to artists.-- --- http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 // skype:esajuhaniruoho // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/ // iMessage: esaru...@gmail.com <mailto:esaru...@gmail.com> //
Re: [Vo]:NEWS: HOUSE COMMITTEE REQUIRES LENR BRIEFING FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Jed, Why do you say this? I am curious. Ruby On 6/14/16 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3350-NEWS-HOUSE-COMMITTEE-REQUIRES-LENR-BRIEFING-FROM-SECRETARY-OF-DEFENSE/ This couldn't come at a worse time. - Jed -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves
If we consider the many autonomous robots that tweet, post, comment, and reply for you, it may be! On 6/6/16 8:44 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's case on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under various names. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ruby wrote: There is no reasoning with a digital meme. Elon Musk said it out loud - we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us. Reason does not exist there. A true advocate of new energy will always list the many players in this field making a new energy future happen. Here is what I wrote after the Oct 2011 test. I wish more bloggers would do the same. http://coldfusionnow.org/steam-punk/ Ruby On 6/6/16 7:25 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole wrote: I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of people who have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in that regard it has interest. People who have certain preconceptions, and then make inferences far beyond the evidence to fit with those preconceptions, oblivious, Eric -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves
There is no reasoning with a digital meme. Elon Musk said it out loud - we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us. It just doesn't look like what we thought it would. All the records, pictures, data, comments, tweets, .pdfs, videos, etc of Rossi (-and everyone!) LIVES an autonomous digital life - 24-7 alive - with no physical body at all. Reason is from another realm, the physical realm, where you say something, I listen, and then respond to your points, and we exchange little by little, point-by-point in a linear fashion that our chain of logic can handle. What we have now is all-at-once viral impressions, perceptions seemingly amplified by the speed-of-light networks to be everywhere at all times. Reason does not exist there. I used to blog on these issues, too. A true advocate of new energy will always list the many players in this field making a new energy future happen. Rossi is but one of the players. Let's place all the researchers in the spotlight, and generate awareness of a very real (physical) newly-forming service environment (the ground) from which will emerge a usable technology (the figure). Here is what I wrote after the Oct 2011 test. I wish more bloggers would do the same. http://coldfusionnow.org/steam-punk/ Now, this legal saga will waste more mental space than my noggin will fit. I'll wait for the "ending"! Dammit, I hope it's good. Ruby On 6/6/16 7:25 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com <mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of people who have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in that regard it has interest. People who have certain preconceptions, and then make inferences far beyond the evidence to fit with those preconceptions, oblivious, Eric -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
Thank you Bob for clarifying that. I did not know what you meant. I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition! Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect to see, so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another. LENR is unique in that there is no consensus on what is happening from the community itself even after almost three decades of research data. there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in to form the theory. Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all. So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone? I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would pledge to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would form the core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ...... Ruby On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote: I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s paper, and some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct scientific action. I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.” The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places like universities and media outlets. Ed worked at one such DOE entity any years, as did I, although not the same one. I thought that Ed was referring to the managements of such places (and not many of the true scientists that worked with him) when he identified the option they have. Thanks again for your comment, Bob *From:* Ruby <mailto:r...@hush.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info That is to say "accept the experimental results and form a theory around the data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model. The contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience". On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Peter-- You quoted Ed Storms as follows: *“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the impossible” (Ed Storms)*** ** IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying to explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomena. To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is _not_ part of science. Thus, this is _not_ an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous people who claim to know the truth. It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks. Bob Cook *From:* Robert Dorr <mailto:rod...@comcast.net> *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking All the best, peter -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com> -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
Bob, you are quoting out of context. I am guessing you did not read the paper yet, for in this case, "the obvious" refers to "the scientific results". That is to say "accept the experimental results and form a theory around the data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model. The contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience". Ruby On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Peter-- You quoted Ed Storms as follows: *“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the impossible” (Ed Storms)*** ** IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying to explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomena. To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is _not_ part of science. Thus, this is _not_ an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous people who claim to know the truth. It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks. Bob Cook *From:* Robert Dorr <mailto:rod...@comcast.net> *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking All the best, peter -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org <mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org> www.coldfusionnow.org <http://www.coldfusionnow.org> lenrexplained.com <http://www.lenrexplained.com>
Re: [Vo]:cold fusion class action
Love this vocabulary. Been a fan of Eno for decades, never heard this! Ruby On 4/19/16 5:19 PM, H LV wrote: In exchange for a small royalty fee, the State could provide free patent services. The royalties would affirm the existence of a collective intelligence or what the artist Brian Eno calls "scenius" from which an individual genius emerges. Brian Eno on genius vs “scenius”: What really happened was that there was sometimes very fertile scenes involving lots and lots of people – some of them artists, some of them collectors, some of them curators, thinkers, theorists, people who were fashionable and knew what the hip things were – all sorts of people who created a kind of ecology of talent. And out of that ecology arose some wonderful work. ... So I came up with this word “scenius” – and scenius is the intelligence of a whole… operation or group of people. And I think that’s a more useful way to think about culture, actually. I think that – let’s forget the idea of “genius” for a little while, let’s think about the whole ecology of ideas that give rise to good new thoughts and good new work." Harry http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/19/cold-fusion-class-action-lawsuit-puts-uspto-in-heavy-water/ -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:Saudi Arabia to Diversify
It is a European name, and possibly came from the Defkalion work. they did not want to use the nuclear word. I first encountered the term in use by Peter Gluck. On 4/15/16 12:56 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: So, what is the provenance of "Lattice Enabled Nanoscale Reactions"? I can't recall coming across that one. Who uses it? -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
Why would the E-Cat unit sit for a year (back in 2012) with no where to go for testing when IH brought it for testing in the first place? (Remember everyone bashing Rossi for the delay after photos surfaced of the shipment?) Why would IH agree to such an "incompetent" tester? (Confidentiality agreements would have nothing to do with that.) Why would IH keep quiet about concerns for a full-year of testing - while applying for their own patent? Why would IH solicit and receive funds based on their "acquiring E-Cat IP"? After all of that, why does IH say now, the three years was "without results" - now that it is time to pay $89,000,000? To seriously claim "it is ridiculous to assert that IH have not acted in good faith" will require answers to these questions first. Ruby On 4/7/16 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote: *De-lurks* Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be doing so with a big smile on their face. The very simple truth is that Rossi has made big claims and has (as usual) failed to deliver. Almost certainly IH will have their hands tied due to confidentiality agreements, so will be prevented from revealing in detail just how bad/unconvincing things are and how ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling shenanigans have been. I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling himself, but think it most likely he does not given how long his circus has been going on. On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com <mailto:fznidar...@aol.com>> wrote: It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK, > because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the > money is still in the escrow. Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit. He seems to have the heads up on a lot of this stuff. -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:Coal Mining and more
Old stuff goes out slowly as obsolete technology is elevated to Art. The new stuff is released without thought or planning regarding the effects on society, and can storm through culture like a virus. Read Marshall McLuhan's War and Peace in the Global Village for more on this idea. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671689967?tag=openlibr-20 Black swans are named for the most extreme events (perhaps a sudden collapse of some currency technology, say), but most new technology comes on fast for most, but not all. For instance, cell phones were introduced quickly, but it took a few decades for critical capacity use. A whole service environment to support cellphones was already formed so they could operate, so not everyone was surprised and the cultural changes had already begun. But cellphones introduced haphazardly into the closed cultures of mid-east countries threatened the identity and power of those in control overnight, creating much violence, psychic and otherwise. When the code is cracked, free energy will leap over existing infrastructure and sweep the planet so fast, we'll all be spinning (hopefully not in my wheelchair!) Cold Fusion NOW! (and zero point after that) Ruby On 7/22/15 10:19 AM, Chris Zell wrote: I continue to wonder about the pace of change and the fact that some change is nonlinear, even catastrophic – unlike slowly fading coal mines. Such as: 1)Any antiaging breakthrough that adds even a few years to common lifespan 2)Any ‘free’ energy or really cheap new source 3)Discovery of extraterrestrial life ( small, if bacteria but huge if intelligent!) 4)General economic collapse (how Japan continues is a puzzle to me) Chris Zell WETM-TV -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline
We march backwards into the future. --Marshall McLuhan Ruby On 7/21/15 2:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. - Wilfred Trotter http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html - Jed -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
I got a message from Pam Boss on your question of nickel codeposition James: We did do an experiment that plated Ni on a cathode in contact with CR-39. We got no tracks in the CR-39. We also saw that the Ni did not load with D. and would have to check my notebooks. I do recall a Ni-H2O plating that gave no results. And, as I said, there was no outgassing when the current was turned off indicating that Ni does not load electrolytically. I’ve been told you have to be at high temperatures to get H or D to load into Ni. Regarding the lithium, Jones, I asked Did this team consider the lithium as an energy-producing element in this scenario? She responded, We did Pd/D co-dep using KCl instead of LiCl. We still got tracks. Mel Miles’ co-dep formulation does not have LiCl in the plating solution. He still got heat. Doubt that Li is involved. so I guess the nickel wasn't successful with either the H2O or D2O or it would have been pursued more Now, I wonder why it wasn't successful??? Oi! Ruby On 4/12/15 2:00 PM, James Bowery wrote: Its rather maddening that they got thermal runaway in 3 out of 10 trials in a very simple set up using *light* water and palladium but they never thought to replace the palladium salts with *nickel* salts to*codeposit nickel* rather than palladium. Or did they and they simply did not talk about it? On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com http://www.lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
Hi Jones, Thank you very much. I really like making these movies. They may have addressed these issues in later work, but I do not know. I can ask about this when I speak to these guys again. It is easy to see things in retrospect; much harder when you're living it, and have to tip-toe around, too. I can't fault these guys (and gal!) work, but say only that you're right, we need a big program hiring lots of young scientists to test multiple scenarios to nail this thing down. Will Gates Foundation do that for the Triumirate: SRI, Texas Tech (and SKINR), and ENEA? I sure hope so! On 4/12/15 6:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Thanks again to Ruby for this effort. Well done, but begging for more… I share James Bowery’s sentiment of a “maddening” realization (in retrospect) but for a different reason. That reason is lithium for me, instead of nickel for him. The recent experiments of Parkhomov/Rossi have opened up the possibility that what we are seeing in LENR is based on thermal gain in lithium. It could be bulk lithium or one of the two isotopes. Cook and Rossi are saying lithium-7, but there are better reasons in nuclear physics to suggest that Li-6 - which is more considerably active (even if both are active). And since the active isotope, if it is Li-6, is only a few percent of natural lithium, even if they had realized the importance of lithium in general back then, Szpak and Boss could have missed that it was Li-6. Caveat: no one has data now to prove that Li-6 is the active isotope, but that important detail will probably be determined within a few weeks to months. The maddening realization for all of us could be that lithium would have plated out on the cathode as well – but this was never mentioned or considered. Lithium would probably have plated better as a different salt than the chloride – but in retrospect it is maddening that they did not think to try plating enriched isotopes of lithium (as well as nickel) as well as using different salts. Of course they would have needed a larger staff. There are dozens of permutation and combinations if we want to go this far - yet in a perfect world of adequate funding, this would have been done. The fact the various combinations with lithium and nickel and hydrogen were not done may (in retrospect) have meant that at least 20 years of research has been misguided in pursuit of deuterium fusion – when we should have been looking at lithium all along. (again, there is no proof of that for now, and the idea will be resisted by those who are fully invested in Pd-D -- but we will know more within weeks). *From:*Ruby Hi James, they did not speak about that substitution, and I am not sure if they did that or not. I do not recall reading that in the subset of papers I have read. James Bowery wrote: Its rather maddening that they got thermal runaway in 3 out of 10 trials in a very simple set up using *light* water and palladium but they never thought to replace the palladium salts with *nickel* salts to*codeposit nickel* rather than palladium. On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com http://www.lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
Oh, I did ask Stan Szpak if he thought the Pd-D and Ni-H reactions were the same and he said, No, they are different, so my conclusion was not his. On 4/12/15 3:21 PM, Ruby wrote: Hi James, they did not speak about that substitution, and I am not sure if they did that or not. I do not recall reading that in the subset of papers I have read. There was a time limit interviewing Stan Szpak as he has some health issues. He also had a lot to say, so I hardly got to ask questions; he just kept talking on about what he wanted, and then we had to go. It is just really something that you can get such heat generated from palladium and H2O. That seems to further the notion that the reactions from Pd-D and Ni-H are of the same ilk, does it not? How do we explain this otherwise? There is so much to bring to light from these earlier experiments. On 4/12/15 2:00 PM, James Bowery wrote: Its rather maddening that they got thermal runaway in 3 out of 10 trials in a very simple set up using *light* water and palladium but they never thought to replace the palladium salts with *nickel* salts to*codeposit nickel* rather than palladium. Or did they and they simply did not talk about it? On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com http://www.lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
Thank you Alain, we are coming to the day that there will be no arguing about it. Those who deny the existence of this are already buried, they just don't know it yet. I see no reason to waste another moment on debating Neanderthals! We have 26 years of data just waiting to be explored. Here in this movie, a discussion of palladium and light-water, regular H2O, has caused multiple thermal runaways. People talk about PD-D and Ni-H, but this makes it clear that EITHER hydrogen isotope will work with multiple metals; we are not limited to the traditional pairs! How does this fit into the theories of today? Is this taken into consideration by those engineering technology? So much science to figure out Have a GREAT time at the conference! Ruby On 4/11/15 10:20 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: The kind of video that can convice that LENR is real and is good science. to watch and share. 2015-04-12 4:25 GMT+02:00 Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
Hi James, they did not speak about that substitution, and I am not sure if they did that or not. I do not recall reading that in the subset of papers I have read. There was a time limit interviewing Stan Szpak as he has some health issues. He also had a lot to say, so I hardly got to ask questions; he just kept talking on about what he wanted, and then we had to go. It is just really something that you can get such heat generated from palladium and H2O. That seems to further the notion that the reactions from Pd-D and Ni-H are of the same ilk, does it not? How do we explain this otherwise? There is so much to bring to light from these earlier experiments. On 4/12/15 2:00 PM, James Bowery wrote: Its rather maddening that they got thermal runaway in 3 out of 10 trials in a very simple set up using *light* water and palladium but they never thought to replace the palladium salts with *nickel* salts to*codeposit nickel* rather than palladium. Or did they and they simply did not talk about it? On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA 1-707-616-4894 r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
[Vo]:VIDEO: Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition
I made a new movie called Following Nature's Documents Stan Szpak LENR Co-deposition (18:28): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBJjWzlKl0 It is taken from video interviews conducted in January 2015 with Dr. Stanislaw Szpak, Dr. Frank Gordon, and Dr. Melvin Miles, former Navy scientists and engineers who researched the anomalous effects in deuterated systems using the co-deposition technique. It will also play at the ICCF-19 conference next week. It is not of the viral sort, but a good intro into what the co-dep situation was all about. I've had alot of fun making these movies, and I hope you like it. Ruby -- Ruby Carat Eureka, CA USA r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org lenrexplained.com
Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
This guy is spamming lots of our Youtube's. I let him post the same exact tome on two or three of our videos, but after that, I deleted his comments. Ruby On 10/24/14, 7:46 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Barry Kort on Dr bob blog reported challenging critiques of McKubre experiments http://www.drboblog.com/cbs-60-minutes-on-cold-fusion/#comment-37932 maybe some already have the debunking, the correction... i imagien it is addressed: About a year after CBS 60 Minutes aired their episode on Cold Fusion, I followed up with Rob Duncan to explore Richard Garwin’s thesis that McKubre was measuring the input electric power incorrectly. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:To Arms
James, it's just so tiring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uai7M4RpoLU Let them continue to hallucinate; their typing is the only thing keeping the economy going while a new infrastructure is being built right under their noses! On 10/17/14, 3:37 PM, James Bowery wrote: /. just posted a story debunking cold fusion Have at it, men and Ruby! http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/10/17/2231236/the-physics-of-why-cold-fusion-isnt-real -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:New Miles interview on Helium-4, Excess Heat, Peer Review
John Maguire has interviewed Dr. Melvin Miles and made it available here: http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/ Just listening now, Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From Dr. Melvin Miles: /Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./ Ruby On 9/17/14, 6:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm not comfortable being critical of Miles, who is a fine researcher. And my opinion is not based on anyone's incompetence nor is it based on any particular result - but on a down-to-earth understanding of mass spectrometers and what the specification and error limits actually are, and in looking at all the ways that mistakes can be made at these extremes. It's pretty basic. The challenge of this kind of measurement was always too great to handle on a small budget, and still is- when the resources are limited. Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of this work was done a decade ago. Miles was up against an intractable problem and we should thank him for being completely up front about it. But let's not forget he is talking about a few PARTS PER BILLION. It does not matter how well or how many times you calibrate -- there is no acceptable measurement technique which can derive accuracy at this kind of helium dilution. None of the other 16, 18 or whatever number of measurements - which have purportedly taken place, were robust enough to have made the amount of helium which is needed in order to get the dilution level up to ppm... without extreme enrichment, and that is where the problem lies. Getting the He/D2 ratio higher prior to measurement is what few want to talk about in detail. To make things worse, much worse -- there is a technique for bringing samples up from ppb to ppm which is called gettering or NEG (non evaporable gettering). It can introduce order of magnitude errors. Jones -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On 9/18/14, 6:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science -- not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. At some point, we have to have confidence in the results from a lab. Dr. Miles has defended his results successfully from all sides, and pays attention to details to do it. As a former Navy scientist, he had access to what he needed. He does not state conclusions lightly. For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. That is your prerogative. However, the fact the the heat-helium correlation has been made multiple times since Miles' work, should factor into anyone's thinking on the matter. In particular, the work SRI did is exemplary. The correlation is strong. In any other field, this would be clearly seen as fact. In cold fusion, it seems the lack of discipline, the lack of historical knowledge, the lack of knowledge of the experimental data, combined with the euphoria of social media, allows any unfounded criticism to be amplified beyond it's usefulness. The think I find most alarming is the circle the wagons mentality that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno's work. It is anti-scientific and counter-productive. Neither I or Miles have said anything about Mizuno. I am not sure who is circling the wagons. To quell confusion in the minds of lurkers, and those who might positively contribute to the field, I am setting the record straight: heat and helium are correlated for Pd-D systems by professional scientists from agencies and institutes who've successfully defended their work for over two decades. What is means is there is a clear nuclear effect from safe, table-top cells. And when deuterium is the fuel, helium is a result, a result that correlates with the mass-energy expected from DD fusion. This does not point to any particular theory, only a correlation of effects. See pages 86-91 in Storms' The Science of LENR published 2007 by World Scientific for the historical facts on the heat-helium correlation, a very real and documented effect. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 I will end my participation in this discussion here. It's back to work for me, again. Sigh. I wish you success in your research efforts, Jones. Ruby *From:*Ruby From Dr. Melvin Miles: /Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./ Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On 9/16/14, 8:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Wow. This is a stunner. Jones, These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person. To deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only is Melvin Miles incompetent, but so are the researchers from the numerous (16?) other studies confirming this effect as well. Are you, in fact, basing your opinion on only one result? Miles has successfully defended his work against the strongest assaults from pseudo-skeptics for two decades. He has no reason to debate this issue further, as careful as he was to be sure there were no contaminative leaks. If you are secretly reading an insular CMNS forum of scientists, then you would know the response of one member who said, essentially, that in any other field of science, these results would be unquestionable. But because it's cold fusion, anything goes. Miles responded privately, and I do have permission to post this note: /This is nothing new. My helium-4 results were always reported in ppb and not ppm. I don't know how the atmospheric helium would know which metal flasks contained gases from experiments producing excess heat and then only contaminate those particular flasks. The control experiments with no excess heat gave a consistent mean helium-4 level of 4.5+-0.5 ppb. The flasks with excess heat were significantly higher in helium-4 , and the ppb levels were in reasonable agreement with amounts expected for the excess power that was measured.// --Melvin Miles// / Back to work, Ruby/ / I'm not on CMNS because of their policy of insularity - so I cannot verify that the following message actually appeared, but it seems to be further devastation to the widely held notion that helium and excess heat can be well-correlated in LENR, even though it comes from only one proponent. He was a prime proponent - and his posting shows the underlying foundation is/was built on sand. In fact, this almost proves to me that there is no correlation, or even negative correlation - when it had been used to show the opposite. That's right - this is better proof of NO HELIUM from fusion - than of a direct correlation. And worse, Miles has been called the gold standard by a few proponents. Apparently some were confused by the difference between million and billion. BTW, I did not get this from Krivit, but it shows that he may be largely correct on his unpopular stance on helium. And I hate to admit that, because Steve is wrong on a number of other issues IMHO - particularly on Widom/Larsen and his insistence that Rossi is a scammer. Yet, I for one owe Steve Krivit an apology, since he did stick his neck out on the helium issue - and he seems to be largely correct - or at least more right than wrong. From M. Miles: I want to respond to various comments about my China Lake (Navy) results from 1990-1994 about the heat and helium correlations. Someone commented that it would have been better if I had found helium-4 in the electrolysis gases at levels greater than the helium-4 content normally in air (5.22 ppm). I agree that higher excess power levels would have been nice, but we had to live with the excess power that was actually measured. However, it is unrealistic to expect helium-4 levels in the electrolysis gases via fusion greater than the 5.22 ppm found naturally in air for our open calorimetric system. (Our system was not open directly to the atmosphere, but the electrolysis gases escaped via an oil bubbler that prevented the back-flow of air). My calculations show that D + D fusion to form helium-4 would produce 11.2 ppb (Billion!-not million) of helium-4 in the electrolysis gases per 0.100 W of excess power using a typical electrolysis current of I = 500 mA (See page 32 of my final Navy report, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, September 1996). Therefore, the production of helium-4 exactly equal to the 5.22 ppm in air would have required an excess power of 46 W. Such a large excess power would have immediately driven my cell to boiling, depleted the cell contents, and ended the experiment. It is almost unbelievable that a few regular posters on CMNS would say that Miles work is proof of a good correlation, when it actually appears to show that all - 100% - of the helium measured could easily have diffused into system from the outside. I suspect that most of the other reports have the same or a similar underlying problem - they have not taken into account the high levels of helium in Laboratories where MS is routinely practiced. Helium concentration can be 1000 times more than what has been measured. One will often see a high pressure helium tank within feet of the instrument itself. This is supposed to be a science forum, where experiment rules, not a slap-on-the-back old boys club where past false notions live on, well beyond their predictive value and instead actually become counter-productive to progress. Isn't it about time that we either abandon or downplay the entire
Re: [Vo]:Solar Collectors' Avian Threat
Thank you Terry for posting this. I had no idea the problem was so bad. I curse - and pity - the designers of this death ray at BurntSourceEnergy. May their chicken be black out of the oven - and Thanksgiving dinner a FAIL - for the rest of their existence. Examples abound describing the extinction process going on now - birds, bees, insects, salmon, tuna, mammals, ...sigh. The human - better yet sub-human - sociopathic need for profit above all else spells our own doom as we cannabalize all that is worthy in our world. Stop Suicidal Solar! Cold Fusion NOW! Ruby On 8/19/14, 9:37 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/brightsource-solar-plant-sets-birds-on-fire-as-they-fly-overhead-1.2739512 Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the concentrated beams of solar energy focused upward by the plant's 300,000 mirrors — streamers, for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. Federal wildlife investigators who visited BrightSourceEnergy's Ivanpah plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one streamer every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
On 7/21/14, 1:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears to be misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the opinion of many, there are better explanations, and they should be heard without the observers publishing their own book. That is what forums are designed for. There is no way to be supportive of a book that marginalizes all three of the best remaining hopes for commercialization of LENR – Rossi, Mizuno, and Mills, and that is the problem in a nutshell. Therefore and again, if anyone can indeed show evidence of this kind of fusion “data rules”. We cannot go beyond the hard facts and the data available, and as of mid July 2014 there appears to be no meaningful probability that fusion of protons into deuterium can be involved in any of the best experimental work being done. For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to be efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This does not marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps these experimental efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward. If there are hard facts and data on BECs forming at high temperature inside LENR reactors, or any of the other theoretical constructs, we must make that available - and show the relationship to the twenty-five years of data generated so far. If there are no hard facts to replace assumptions in these theories, It would appear that there is as much evidence for fusion of protons into deuterium by default. And, if Storms' logic is able to finish the job, then he is ahead by one length only. Only testing will tell. We should ask: What should these tests be? How can we achieve these answers? That reaction of protons fusing to deuterium is a cornerstone which Ed has chosen to build on for Ni-H, so all we can do for now is disagree - and wait for better data. The book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction focuses on Pd-D systems because of the mountain of data that few look at twice. Also, because Storms makes the case for the Pd-D and Ni-H ( and all transition metal hydrides) generating the same LENR process, he writes how to make it happen in Pd-D, but keeps the Ni-H info close to vest for use in his lab. Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each theory, about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the twenty-five years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There is no discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as predictions are few. As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues to get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately chosen. I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms raises good questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor communication skills are forgiven, and the smart people in the room do something tangible to make LENR a reality. *From:*Peter Gluck - a destructive and practically unmanageable process based on cracking cannot be basis for a commercial technology; Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as has been the case so far. - Pd D and transition metals H processes are different and not D +D and H +H, Mpther Nature do not accepts such constraints This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or the other. How do you do that? - Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer. - the LENR+ processes (DGT, Rossi) seems to work outside this theory If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through hydrotons, then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface would be expected to make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill. Mea culpa probably_ I could not understand the concept of hydrotons More important LENR is a multi-, ,multi- process see my Questions. I know for sure- the book is excellent as all publications of Ed, but we still have to wait for a chain of theories explaining LENR. I can only hope the actual questions are addressed. A theory of LENR should be at the top of the list on things-to-do-for-nuclear-scientists-this-year if we want to maximize the technology. Storms takes the approach of looking at the data, finding commonalities, and applying logic. Judging by the state of LENR theory today, and the lack of one, how could that be bad? Ruby Peter -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
On 7/22/14, 1:30 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ruby, Thank you for making this discussion more serious and fundamental. Please have a lot of patience with a grumpy old man having unorthodox ideas re CF/LENR. It seems Nature behaves someetimes as a bad girl, respecting rules that differ from ours. You wrote: / For commercialization to be a reality, and for the technology to be efficient and maximized, a theory of LENR must be found. This does not marginalize research and engineering efforts. It helps these experimental efforts by moving the hunt for a theory forward./ / / Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, acreative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you don't know well how it works. You wrote: / / /Peter, if a nanocrack is indeed the NAE, then the idea would be to manufacture nanocracks, not leave them to be created by chance, as has been the case so far./ / / Just to mention that at birth NAE was/ were 'active sites see please: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf and environment is not correct, because it is about something very LOCAL- the real enviroment, nuclear active is the complete CelFP or Piantelli the entire E-cat or Hyperion. To manage crAcking of a metallic material is an awfully complex task. Cracking is not reversible- at least not at room temperature and is a sacrificial operation as in thermal shields of rockets- based on ablation. For a technologist it is repugnant. Thank you for the paper, Peter. I had referenced it in the first calendar if you recall! But random cracking would not be part of a technology; nanotechnology would create spaces to fill with fuel. You wrote- re D +D and H+ H rejected: /:This is speculation. I would like to see this figured out one way or the other. How do you do that?/ See please the papers results of Piantelli, Rossi, DGT and of Ahern et other nanopowder studies. And yes, it is some speculation in it. However I know no proof for it. Is it some proof in the book of Ed? This is my point. No one has proof of this. Yet, it is stated as fact. It is not a fact that Pd-D and Ni-H systems are different. Personally, it dosn't make sense to me that they would be completely different NAEs, and I can cite the reasons I feel that way. But until there is a theory that says so, keeping an open mind is a good idea. You wrote: (Pd D is technologically dead if wet, electrochemical) /A mug of coffee is bad enough near my computer./ / / Non capisco however as faster we will refocus he research in our field as sooner it will go well. I don't expect you will take such an initiative on Cold Fusion Now or to publish my innfamous: eevrything I knew about cold fusion was wrong but the palladium addio! moment will arrive, I bet. When the OG Pd-D electrolytic results were first announced, some tried the Ni-H electrolytic, and it worked too! Two transition metals, and hydrogen isotopes. Any bias I have falls on the side that the two phenomenon are the same. Yes, no one wants a wet unit. But what about nano-palladium loaded zeolites and D gas? Results are strong. The fact is it is too soon to tell, because there is no theory to guide the choices. you wrote re DGT, Rossi: /If nanocracks are the NAE, and if the process works through hydrotons, then the proprietary processing of the nickel surface would be expected to make nano-spaces for the hydrogen to fill. / We will know a lot soon from both LENR+ technologies. It is about nano- surfaces, nano-antennas but NOT cracks, IMHO. PLEASE listen very carefully to what our friend AXIL says here! Take a look to my cited paper re the concept of surface, today it is even more complex. Storms looks to many data, true, however many important data are still missing. My best wishes, Peter If it is true that the space for hydrogen is the important aspect, what would be the difference between a nano-crack in a metal, and a nano-space made by walls or nano-antennae upward from a surface? Could the properties of both spaces be the same and both function as a NAE? Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their predictions are. That would be helpful. And thank you, Peter for your persistence in trying to find a solution. Ruby On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: On 7/21/14, 1:57 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Despite his expertise, or perhaps because of it - Storms appears to be misguided about Pd-D being relevant for Ni-H. In the opinion of many, there are better explanations, and they should be heard without the observers publishing their own book. That is what forums are designed
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
On 7/22/14, 7:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Ruby Jones, there are five different theories that are currently isolated islands in a sea of perpetually prototype technology. No one agrees on anything, and there is no discussion about the assumptions in each theory, about how those assumptions are plausible, or not, and how the twenty-five years of data is expressed in each of those theories. There is no discussion about hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion as predictions are few. As an advocate, I want to see some serious discussion about these issues to get this thing figured out. I don't care which theory is ultimately chosen. I want a technology and some new lifestyle options! Storms raises good questions. I can only hope egos are dropped, poor communication skills are forgiven, and the smart people in the room do something tangible to make LENR a reality. Yes it is frustrating but the glimmer of hope is that our deep level of frustration, shared by almost everyone on this list, points directly to the emerging answer. And - we appreciate your work as an advocate, Ruby. Thank you Jones. I am a sucker for the underdog. Especially one that could bring forward a different world paradigm. Egos and poor communication are part of the problem which you are addressing. But smart people are involved, needy and smart; and with more data – the correct answer(s) will emerge. We are on the cusp of that in 2014, and thirsty for more accurate data. That there was really nothing new in Storm’s book, especially new data - is part of the frustration level. He has done such good experimental work is the past, that there was an expectation of a breakthrough coming from his Lab and not from his Library. I believe that the twenty-five years of data had not been properly looked at wholly. Storms did that, and he was uniquely positioned to do that by the fact that he had been there from the start, and he had performed several surveys of the field over the past couple decades. McKubre was right in saying that Storms probably knows more than anyone about the field - including new data. So a summary from the Library is in good order. There are so many early results that have clues to this reaction. He is not a mathematician, nor is he a quantum mechanics expert. He has tried to understand things from the ground up, and look fresh at the basics. If an assumption is wrong, no amount of quantum mechanics will make it right. Apply math on plausible ideas that support the data, and we can get somewhere. He is packaging this book and survey of theories in language that people outside the field can understand. Looking at today's LENR theories, there are clearly holes (the unacknowledged assumptions) that turn conventional scientists away from this field. When the LENR community of theoriests cannot face these holes, and discuss the discrepancies, how can mainstream science want to jump in? Storms wants new people to start seriously thinking about this field, and he made a book that is logically consistent to do that. But that overall answer – as to which theory is correct - is an answer that will not please everyone, and perhaps not please anyone - since the correct answer will simply be something closer to “all-of-them” instead of “one-or-the-other.” I don't see how any of these theories can merge. Either there is electron capture, or there is a BEC, or a hydroton, or . or not. They are completely different and unrelated ideas to me. That is too glib, so let me explain. There are indeed at least five good theories or partial theories - more like 12 if we count “facilitating concepts” as a theory, of which Ed’s is but one, but they are not “isolated islands”. Many of them, even all of them interact, and will probably be shown to be partially active in the same experiment. If that is true, I don't see it. I don't see how a BEC interacts with low-momentum neutron creation. I am not an expert, though. That is why I talk to the scientists and they explain it to me. Robert Godes explained his Quantum Fusion to me, George Miley explained his swimming electrons and clusters to me, and Storms has explained his hydroton to me. Every single one of them had no relation to other, in their words or concepts. The good-news / bad-news for Ed Storms book is that the NAE observation could be among the most active, seen in almost all experiments… ! hurray ! … but the bad news is that Storms’ further assertion of protons fusing to deuterium could be active in only a few ppm – almost never. If true, this is hurtful to Ed, who has convinced himself that he alone has this problem figured out. Thus he is not happy with the criticism. Same for W-L in that some ultra-cold neutrons are likely to be found, but their explanation is grossly insufficient. Same for Rossi-Focardi – in claiming nickel transmutation. Yes, he could be wrong
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms Explains LENR -- New Interview
On 7/20/14, 8:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com mailto:foks0...@gmail.com wrote: /Earlier he had chastised theorists for throwing out the laws of thermodynamics, and here he does essentially the same thing./ If the reaction takes place in the lattice, we're definitely violating the laws of thermodynamics. ***HOW? HOW?? HOW??? Demonstrate it!!! Why is this such a big friggin deal to you and Ed Storms and why hasn't he LOUDLY proclaimed it, especially when he he was here on Vortex? If it's such a BIG friggin deal, why didn't he make a BIG FRIGGIN DEAL about it here on Vortex? Hi Kevin, I haven't listened to the interview yet, but I've spent some time talking with Storms about this. He applies a physics 101 application of thermodynamics to system of particles in a closed environment. For LENR, the lattice plays the closed environment. Question: How do nuclear particles converge together in a lattice vacancy and fuse? (How does deuterium turn into helium?) Question: How does an electron gain enough energy to combine with proton? (782 keV to make neutron) Where does the energy come from to do this? How does this energy coalesce in one location at once, without affecting the chemical bonds that make up the lattice? How does it accumulate over time (it it does)? Gaining energy in a localized region means it must have been lost somewhere else from the surrounding area. But thermodynamics says energy cannot spontaneously accumulate in one location. Yes, unusual quantum mechanical effects happen. Odd things can occur once in a while. But, given the number of required reactions to make the observed heat, it would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics to have so many out-of-the-norm events. That's how I understand what he is saying. In a nano-environment, separate from the chemical lattice itself but still a part of it in another sense, we can see new high energy events manifest before altering the NAE before high rates of nuclear reactions can be achieved. ***What a bunch of bowlsheet. The nano-crack is a separate space from the lattice. It is a broken part of the lattice. As a separate space, it has an environment different from the lattice. In this environment, nuclei and electrons can be trapped in an unusual way (the hydroton) in a nanocrack that can't happen in a vacancy. The hydroton can resonate in a way it wouldn't in the lattice. These are two examples of how the crack allows behavior that a vacancy won't When Storms' hydroton in the nano-crack resonates, mass turns to energy slowly, over time, as opposed to hot fusion which releases mass-energy all at once. Hydrotonic fusion happens without fragmentation, as opposed to hot fusion which does. Because hydrotonic fusion happens without fragmentation, momentum is not conserved in the same way that the fusion products of hot fusion will conserve momentum. These three differences show some of the criteria and reasoning behind Storms' insistence upon separating the two phenomenon of hot fusion and cold fusion. That's how I understand it at this time. Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:New books on science and theory
Edmund Storms' new book is available today! Christy will be shipping them from the Infinite Energy office. /The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation/ by Edmund Storms See http://lenrexplained.com/ Also, Melvin Miles and Michael McKubre wrote the chapter on cold fusion for /Science Inspired by Martin Fleischmann/ See http://coldfusionnow.org/science-inspired-by-martin-fleischmann/ Get copies for yourself - and for your local school libraries! Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pasadena: Theater Arts at Caltech dramatizes the discovery and debunking of “cold fusion” (bring tomatoes)
I wish I could go down there and lay a load of calendars on their sorry art. Ruby On 5/2/14, 5:53 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: for people interested: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/307-Pasadena-Theater-Arts-at-Caltech-dramatizes-the-discovery-and-debunking-of-%E2%80%9Ccold/?postID=590#post590 a nasty anti-cold fusion theater play in pasadena… -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:2014 CF/LANR Colloquium all files page
We are assembling a page for all 2014 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT audio, video, .pdfs, and links to affiliated institutions: http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-full-coverage/ New material will be added here as they are available throughout the week (or two!) Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino slides from 2014 MIT Colloquium
Thank you Jed, I have added your version to the Audio files page: http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-audio-files/ Ruby On 3/27/14, 7:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Finally! The slides are here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Wrote a song form cold fusion. 11 MB type wmv
Synths - retro organ - absurdist dada noise - I want to join your band! Gotta bend that toy though: http://casperelectronics.com/finished-pieces/circuit-bending-tutorial/ On 2/11/14 2:37 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temporary/Quack.wmv Frank Z Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment
I do not recall this topic at ICCF-18. Kidwell was primarily focusing on his happiness chart rating system. On 12/27/13 12:06 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if this was already posted, but did the presentation include more details than revealed in his recent patent application below? Excess enthalpy upon pressurization of dispersed palladium with hydrogen or deuterium - US 20130316897 A1 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment
Though the nasal, sinusoidal quality of his voice lends a snarky impression, I believe he is sincere in his metaphor. For instance, he said the FP announcement was off-the-chart on the happiness chart scale, and, for actual like gas-loading experiments, all chemical reactions cannot be ruled out, and therefore he is at 50% on the chart of happiness. He said after twenty years of NRL studies, they have no conclusive evidence for a reaction, though it deserves further study, a statement puzzling to me. I have to wonder why he would remain in the field of research with his views the way they are. I wonder how much weight his conclusions have at the NRL. On 12/28/13 3:49 PM, James Bowery wrote: That's why I asked if there was a video. The happiness chart seems like it might be snarky but then again it might be sincere. It is difficult to understand what he's getting at from the presentation slides alone. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Toyota Replicates Mitsubishi LENR Transmutation Experiment
Cold Fusion Now took video of Kidwell's presentation at ICF-18, but we did not get permission to upload publicly. He did not want his picture taken at all. I complied with his wishes. After his talk, Iwamura, and others, vociferously answered Kidwell's claims, and stood by their results. Kidwell was disparaging of most results found in the field, from early on till the present (even nagging them about particulars in the elevator!). While his message of careful data acquisition is important, Kidwell's mistrust of competent and talented scientists in the field could be called zealotry, though some diplomatically call it a conversation: Iwamura at ICCF-18 Recent Advances https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGZ5EwiqRw On 12/26/13 1:50 PM, James Bowery wrote: That is a slide presentation. It would be helpful if there were a video with the audio narrative. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Vote to put LENR Cars on Future Energy event
Be sure to check your email to click on the verification link. Otherwise, your vote will not count. On 11/19/13 10:40 PM, Ruby wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/vote-for-lenr-cars-now/ Nicolas Chauvin definitely needs more votes! http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/1864 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:LENT from super vibration proposed
This is pretty much over my head, but I'm kinda following you... :-) I just hope a technology comes out of this research. There's alot o waste to clean up. On 11/19/13 4:41 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: My interpretation of LENT is that the radioactive particles that are contained in the dynamic casimir geometries afforded by supervibration are experiencing time dilation dominated by the accelerated variety -- I believe the opposite variety of time dilation is also present in the geometry where the quantum geometry pumps down the vacuum pressure in a shallow field over the external surface of the plates to concentrate it into the cavity. The before and after radiation measurements focus on the average so the accelerated decay in the contained areas will far outstrip the slight delays and be easier to detect. The geometry of the particles relative to the catalyst would bias these anomalous decay rates. My personal opinion is that catalytic action is based on this same anomaly. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Vote to put LENR Cars on Future Energy event
http://coldfusionnow.org/vote-for-lenr-cars-now/ Nicolas Chauvin definitely needs more votes! http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/1864 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:LENT from super vibration proposed
An update from Toshiro Sengaku on proposals to remediate radioactive materials from Fukushima using LENT: http://coldfusionnow.org/lent-of-radioactive-materials-by-super-vibration/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Quote from Guy Murchie about Ptolemaic astronomy
Following the work of Marshall McLuhan, I have come to see things like synchronicity and ESP as future skills of human mind technology (future for me and the bulk of humanity! though some are evolved faster) According to McLuhan, a new technology emerges as a figure from a ground, to borrow art vocabulary. Also, according to McLuhan, effects precede causes. This is because the service environment for any new technology is already forming to accomodate the new technology. Right now, we are living complex clairvoyance, synchronicity, ESP, and bi-location (among other effects) through digital technology. In cyberspace (such a quaint term!) I can be in Tokyo and Florida at once. Asking my friend to turn on the radio in Florida effects change, though I am not there. The speed-of-light communication allows synchronicity of events, and thoughts. To follow McLuhan, this ground portends our future figure. We are right now living in a world of abundant information, continuously flowing, infinite, seemingly with no end, and nearly free. We need breakthrough energy hardware technology to complete the transformation, and allow human chemical bodies to catch up to our current software world, and as my friend Bob says, end the friction of rent. Ruby On 11/11/13 7:01 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Jefjsez: I myself have no trace of ESP. Yes, you do! Personal Suspicion I think we all do, regardless of we admit it to ourselves or not. Ironically, hunting for ESP is a surefire way of NOT finding it. No wonder CISCOP has had a field day dissing the subject. It's so easy for them not to find any trace of it.;-) I'm under the belief that some forms of synchronicity are nothing more than the physics of ESP in action. (A so called mechanized manifestation of the phenomenon.) It might help to perceive the universe is a huge pattern recognition hologram. /Personal Suspicion -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Quote from Guy Murchie about Ptolemaic astronomy
I have been moving into a new old house and moving stuff out of storage. I have about 2000 books, covering every phase of my life's interests. I just pulled this very book out of a box yesterday, and wondered to myself, hmm, why do I have this book? Now I know! Ruby On 11/8/13 7:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Guy Murchie (1907 - 1997) was an author, journalist and flight instructor who taught navigation during WWII. Murchie was an early FOCF (Friend of Cold Fusion), and a friend of Eugene Mallove, and a mensch. I recommend his book Song of the Sky (1954) which is mainly about navigation. The entire book is on the web: http://archive.org/stream/songofsky00murc/songofsky00murc_djvu.txt -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:ICCF-18 videos for Thursday and Friday posted
Here are the videos of the presentations on Thursday and Friday for which we had permission to post up publicly. These will be the last videos we post up. Spread these links around, and let people know what's going down! A list of available presentations is here: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-for-thursday-and-friday-july-25-and-26/ Thursday playlist on Youtube is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?feature=edit_oklist=PL7rx5Nfge9pdTfMFVbBil51AQkdHdjiwO Friday playlist on Youtube is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7rx5Nfge9pcfglG6Vnl6_WUPEV_RBytK All ICCF-18 videos are on the Cold Fusion Now channel here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos?flow=gridview=0 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Glow-in-the-dark roads
Let's be dark at night, so that we may see the stars! http://www.darksky.org/ Ruby On 10/30/13 5:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Capture UV light during the day, release it at night as visible light. You gotta love things like this! See: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/10/britain-experimenting-glowing-seemingly-self-aware-bike-path/7413/ - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Glow-in-the-dark roads
Yes, conventional over-head lights are horribly over-used. Perhaps a thin strip of this glowing material would suffice, just enough to follow on a starry, moonless night. Ruby On 10/31/13 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It might be useful for the margin, to mark the edge of the road. I suppose that might add to light pollution. That is now done with reflective markers. I guess that is sufficient for automobile traffic. The light from this material decreases as the night grows darker. That is remarkable. It would help reduce ambient light. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar Available Now!
Rumplestiltskin Reaction says, Guess my name! CFLLAQFH sounds Druid. To this year's version I added the holidays for all countries who've held ICCF conferences. (last year, there were no holidays in the calendar.) I also added the eight major Druid holidays in homage to the ancient scientists of yore. Happy Samhain! Ruby cold fusion, LENR, LANR, AHE, quantum fusion, and HENI. Maybe CFLLAQFH? Eric -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Contact film producer assiciated with Discovery Channel they want to do a show
What is the topic? Anti-gravity? Good luck! On 10/24/13 9:18 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I may have to travel to Atlanta to do some filming. Still in the works, will need to review syllabus. Frank Znidarsic -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar Available Now!
Greetings, For a second year, I have made a calendar that showcases the incredible achievements in the field of cold fusion, LENR, LANR, AHE, quantum fusion, and HENI. This year's theme is schools and colleges with faculty who have pursued experimental research, and gotten students involved. There were many revisions, but the final photos are tremendous. You can purchase a calendar and support our work at Cold Fusion Now AND get a great gift for the holidays! The calendars are suitable for sending to friends, family, industry and agency. They are a great promotional tool for education and advocacy. Read more about it here: http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-history-of-cold-fusion-calendar-available-now/ Order a calendar and have it mailed to your door here: http://coldfusionnow.org/store/2014-history-of-cold-fusion-calendar/ You can also order from http://www.Infinite-Energy.com Thank you for your support, Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:ICCF-18 Presentation videos for Wednesday July 24
ICCF-18 Presentation videos for Wednesday July 24, 2013 are uploaded to Youtube. A list of available talks for which we have permission to post is here: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-for-wednesday-july-24/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
Here is a review of The Believers that I wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/marvin-hawkins-i-will-defend-them-at-every-turn/ I found the use of Martin Fleischmann in a private medical situation disturbing, among other elements. Over the next year, Eli and I are making a documentary on the field that will go deeper into why cold fusion was rejected, and more importantly, show the successes that have come since. We have several interviews from ICCF-18 and GlobalBEM, so far. We'll be visiting some labs and resuming filming after the New Year. It will be a feature film to be submitted to festivals, and further awareness the way Believers couldn't. Ruby On 10/16/13 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I get that, but I wish this had been made public because it put to rest many important questions that dogged the field in the early years. I consider this a failure of communication. when academic community fall in consensual delusion, manipulated by few extremists, they put the blame on the victim like any sociopath. I do not think the people who made this video are members of the academic community. They strike me as nitwits who know nothing about experimental science. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I will try to do that. He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately, since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the interviews were severely impacted. On 10/16/13 5:13 PM, James Bowery wrote: Hopefully you'll consult with Baudette. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: Here is a review of The Believers that I wrote: http://coldfusionnow.org/marvin-hawkins-i-will-defend-them-at-every-turn/ I found the use of Martin Fleischmann in a private medical situation disturbing, among other elements. Over the next year, Eli and I are making a documentary on the field that will go deeper into why cold fusion was rejected, and more importantly, show the successes that have come since. We have several interviews from ICCF-18 and GlobalBEM, so far. We'll be visiting some labs and resuming filming after the New Year. It will be a feature film to be submitted to festivals, and further awareness the way Believers couldn't. Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Video The Believers
Hmm, I will have to look into this that you are describing. I can see how both issues could relate. My thesis so far is that it was the MIT and Caltech negative results which most influenced the APS, Nature magazine, the DoE report, and subsequently the USPTO. Both public and private investment were nixed. Those were the pivotal actions, or figures, that expressed the rejection. But the ground was, as it always is, the powerful draw of an existing paradigm. As the premier science institutions, MIT and Caltech had (have) the power to sway policy, and they did. Their attitudes, and hasty experiments, operated from a particular scientific paradigm where, Everything [they] knew as a physicist, ...everything [they] knew about nuclear theory (-Glenn Seaborg), told them cold fusion was impossible. Some people can only go so far. On 10/16/13 5:51 PM, James Bowery wrote: Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference in scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be respected given the depth of his research, however, he, himself, points to events like Oriani's rejection by the American editors of Nature early in 1990 as pivotal -- and I just can't believe that scientific protocol in physics demanded that kind of behavior. He should be confronted with that contradiction. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I will try to do that. He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately, since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the interviews were severely impacted. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:ICCF-18 lecture presentation videos for Tuesday uploaded
Greetings, Eli has finished editing and uploading the Tuesday lecture videos that we have permission to make public. A Tuesday playlist is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7rx5Nfge9pdxoDJMrc7b9FAgIdMc8M3V The ColdFusionNow Youtube channel video upload page is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos A blog post on ColdFusionNow.org is here: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-for-tuesday-july-23/ Monday's playlist is here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7rx5Nfge9pciRw_jDdP1SYvTaf47RCux Any suggestions or comments are welcome. I think Eli is going to take care of some other stuff through the end of the week, and resume editing next week. Thanks for your support, Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:ICCF-18 Monday's lecture video posted
We finally got the first day of video presentations posted up on Youtube! Eli Elliott shot and edited all the video. Here's a list of videos in a blog post: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/ Here's a direct Youtube channel link: http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos Still waiting on a few responses, and a few did not want their video posted. I do not have a contact for James Truchard. If anybody has contact with him, perhaps they could ask about permission to post his presentation. Eli will be working on Tuesday's lectures after the weekend. Thanks for your patience, Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:ICCF-18 Monday's lecture video posted
Jed, that is weird about that link. It worked for me. At any rate, I added the link to your script to the Youtube info. As far as seeing yourself, we are all in the same boat there. I saw a picture of me with JD posted online, and wanted to crawl under the table. What can you do but give up on these trivialities? The important thing is that this message is brought out to the public. THANK YOU for agreeing to post yours. Tuesday's presentations will be sometime, although faster than Monday's. Eli and I are moving into a new old house today that is still a construction zone, (and soon to be Feature Documentary HQ). Oi. No more editing till ...Monday? Ruby On 9/28/13 8:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rubywrote: Here's a list of videos in a blog post: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/ For some reason this linked to ICCF17. Here is the link to 18: http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/ It is mortifying to see my own video. I talk too fast, as my wife tells me. At least it isn't in Japanese. The script is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf It follows fairly closely because I updated it to include some of the stuff I ad libbed during the talk. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:LENR Strategic Business Assessment: Introduction
Mason, check this map out. http://www.mindmeister.com/64849892/tabletop-fusion-discovered Ruby On 8/30/13 2:08 PM, Mason Ainsworth wrote: QUESTIONS 1. Which Players are impacted and How are they impacted? 2. What are the reasonable possible responses to LENR for each Player (or category of Players) and What is the associated probability of implementing the response? 3. What are some important additional considerations to research before synthesizing a LENR business strategy? 4. For the LENR Executive, what is the reasonable rational best strategic approach to introducing our firm's LENR product, given the above information? -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week
On 8/23/13 6:52 AM, a.ashfield wrote: You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other. He said come back Thursday to see what's inside. I have not seen anything written about this. Did he open it up? http://coldfusionnow.org/cravens-demo-a-puzzle-for-onlookers/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR.org hacked with weakness in WordPress
Do you mean your hosting service, or, ISP? Or, are they the same? Can you tell me the name of your service? Bummer. On 8/4/13 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Some idiot tried to hack LENR-CANR.org. When you accessed the indexes it displayed this message: HACKED_kutsaL'@'localhost' (using password: YES) This string was nowhere in any of the files I upload. It was in one of the ISP configuration folders, presumably a php. The people at the ISP could not find it. After they spent 2 days farting around I had to pay them $50 to recover a backup. This is supposedly caused by permissions in one of the WordPress files. The ISP was supposed to send me a memo describing this problem but so far they have not. If anyone knows what this might be, please contact me. I updated to the latest version of WordPress. I found one of the .pdf files was corrupted. I will download them all tomorrow and check them. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
Names are important. They have power, and, they flip like fashion. But no matter what you'd like to call it, when the technology descends, you will not decide the name, the company will not decide the name, the public will. The users of any technology will generate their own language to describe their world. Any imposed name is only a starting point. Rossi didn't think of shortening to Ecat, the fans did. (Perhaps someone on Vortex?) I am an advocate who has stood out on the street and spoke one-on-one with the public about this technology. It is clear: cold fusion is a superior term with the kids and young people. they do not have the prejudice that older people have. And they will be the users. I call it whatever name needs be, for whatever audience I have. It is a Rumplestiltskin reaction, and it's the bomb, too. I will be videotaping at ICCF. I will use multiple names for each person, according to their preference. that's just how cold fusion now rolls. On 7/15/13 3:52 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Bockris memorial
I added this IE link to http://coldfusionnow.org/john-o-mara-bockris-1923-2013/ On 7/10/13 10:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/BockrisMemorial.pdf -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A show of hands, whose going to ICCF-18?
I am going with my friend Eli who will act as cameraman. We will be doing as many interviews as possible, with every one we can. We hope to do daily video updates, but plan to keep most of the video for a feature documentary film. I will be bringing t-shirts and stickers and they will be at the Infinite Energy table, along with a few free 2013 History of CF calendars for participants. I will be soliciting info and sponsorship for the 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar which will feature the theme of educational institutions and their faculty who have been involved in research. This version will also include holidays for all countries that have held ICCFs. I had thought about trying to stream, but I believe I've taken on enough projects already, and won't have the ability. On 7/1/13 9:56 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I am. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A show of hands, whose going to ICCF-18?
I can go to only one, and I chose ICCF. I regret I will miss a chance to interview you. On 7/1/13 8:38 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: no, not me. I had to pick only one, so I decided to go to NI Week instead and do a demo there since ICCF delayed too long in replying to demo requests. I will give vortex a heads up a little before NI Week about demo #2. But remember this is not a science experiment, it is a demo for the unwashed masses and is just to stimulate public awareness. dennis -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:A show of hands, whose going to ICCF-18?
Yes, it's not so much the money to stream, it's just another thing I'd have to deal with. My priority is getting good video, audio and interviews. Hope you can make it and stream, blaze. On 7/1/13 8:14 PM, blaze spinnaker wrote: Kickstarter? What's the cost? Point an iPhone 5 at the speaker and you're done. Maybe bring a tripod. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:It was Harry's fault
Washington Post cites Cold Fusion Now in LENR poll win, but Harry started it all. http://coldfusionnow.org/washington-post-blog-cites-cold-fusion-now-in-lenr-win/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:It was Harry's fault
Negative comments coming in, along with MY. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/27/crowdsourced-wonkblog-readers-are-really-excited-about-cold-fusion/ On 6/27/13 8:47 AM, Ruby wrote: Washington Post cites Cold Fusion Now in LENR poll win, but Harry started it all. http://coldfusionnow.org/washington-post-blog-cites-cold-fusion-now-in-lenr-win/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Yes, I see. The book comes highly recommended as the URL shows: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/textbooks/science/2010/approved_textbooks/approved_science_textbooks.pdf Textbook review was an agenda item on the Virginia Board of Education. Dr. Linda Wallinger, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction was the Presenter AND you can reach her here: linda.wallin...@doe.virginia.gov http://www.gobookee.net/get_book.php?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kb2UudmlyZ2luaWEuZ292L2JvZS9tZWV0aW5ncy8yMDEyLzA3X2p1bC9hZ2VuZGFfaXRlbXMvaXRlbV9nLnBkZgpWaXJnaW5pYSBCb2FyZCBvZiBFZHVjYXRpb24gQWdlbmRhIEl0ZW0= Perhaps your daughter could take her class for a field trip to Langley RC. It's in the neighborhood. On 6/21/13 6:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Holt McDougal is listed below the title, Virginia Science Fusion is the name of book. These two names are on the front cover of the book. Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt publishing company 2013 copyright. NEWS weekly special addition 1989 Fusion or fiction was this experiment flawed? This was on the front page of the News special along with: Why can't results be replicated? Below the picture of the NEWS weekly front page was a brief description of the report about the 1989 announcement. Baah! Dave -Original Message- From: Ruby r...@hush.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 8:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication Dave, Do you have the author or publisher of the textbook? Science teachers review science books for the classroom. This reflects a widespread deference to authority, without questioning the assumptions or thinking for oneself. On 6/21/13 5:12 PM, David Roberson wrote: It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Science Book States No Cold Fusion Replication
Dave, Do you have the author or publisher of the textbook? Science teachers review science books for the classroom. This reflects a widespread deference to authority, without questioning the assumptions or thinking for oneself. It's too much work to edit your syllabus, not to mention change a set of exercises, so don't expect to buck the mythology of what one is required to know a true. Politicians now decide that. Ruby On 6/21/13 5:12 PM, David Roberson wrote: It was speaking about how science operates and used cold fusion as an example of how you must have replication in order to have a sound basis. They stated that cold fusion has not been replicated and was therefore not valid science. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Back in history...
What an excellent essay. The account of the second meeting on transmuations: We held the meeting in the local Holiday Inn. Because of the assault made by Professor Cotton and his colleagues on the first meeting we thought that a more violent one might be made in this meeting and therefore hired a deputy from the police department to be present outside the door of the meeting in order to quell any attempt by members of the Chemistry Department to suppress the presentation of new ideas by violence. The papers of the 96 meeting have been published in the Autumn edition of New Energy of that year. Steven Krivit's archive contains the Proceedings of that meeting: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/J/JNE1N3.PDF http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/J/JNE1N3.PDF#page=81 On 6/17/13 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I never asked Bockris about the harassment. He wrote about it here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf He told me that several other researchers got positive results but were afraid to present them. Some of them asked him to present their results as his own. I do not think he did. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Nasa pursues vacuum engieering.. Eagle Works space propulsion lab is born
See Sonny White's lecture summary (my summary) announcing the project here: http://coldfusionnow.org/session-462-advanced-concepts-lenr-anti-matter-and-new-physics/ He gave a great lecture and it was clear that the lab at Johnson SC would be adequately funded. On 6/14/13 9:58 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Founder Sonny White pursues casimir force to steal momentum from virtual pairs. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Washington Post Poll
Thanks Harry, I posted up here: http://coldfusionnow.org/vote-for-lenr-at-washington-post-web-poll/ On 6/14/13 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: The way this works is that readers submit a comment describing their preference and each comment receive votes. The comments with the most votes appears at the top and it is for LENR. In addition, I browsed all the comments and it appears the _vast_ majority of the votes are for LENR. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-energy-sources-offer-the-most-promise-for-the-us/64c17cf4-c96f-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_topic.html Harry -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:OT: NSA Leaker- Edward Snowden and 200K Pay Scale
All the information about you that exists in these databases constitutes another You, an AI representation that has a life of its own. Chad Scoville called it a Media Doppler http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=614 You have been cloned, and as it evolves over time, Your clone takes on multiple forms. If you can be anybody, you are now nobody. On 6/10/13 5:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote: In recent days, it has become more widely known that there exist databases containing all one’s personal communications and transactions in irrevocable storage forever spread around both public and private organizations. If someone who can access this information, a case to support a given allegation can be easily made by picking the data that supports their conjecture. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:New aetheric energy image
I hope you will enter our next New Energy Paradigm Shift Art Show 2013 near the end of the year. This was the first one we did from last year: http://coldfusionnow.org/gallery/shift-2012-gallery/ On 6/8/13 7:26 PM, John Berry wrote: Hey, for those who were open minded enough to explore this subject, I have made a new image that engineers the aether. http://aethericsciences.net78.net/ This is based on the flower of life, but has a detail in the center that is important. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Over 40 messages posted by Joshua Cude posted on June 4
Scientific background's can be manufactured on the spot. Big deal! Ruby Carat Bachelor's in Physics Master's in Math Free jazz musician (All true) Best credential? No afraid to ask questions and admit ignorance. But I sure don't want to confuse Cude with my booklearnin... On 6/4/13 8:23 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Jed, you admit that you haven't read most of his postings so you haven't a clue. He is a liar. His goal is to debunk. That should be obvious. He has violated a number of rules, and we have been quite tolerant. on 6/1: It's funny how the most vocal advocates for cold fusion shouting that skeptics are not scientific mostly have no scientific background. You and Lomax and Krivit (though not on Rossi), Carat, Wuller, Tyler, and all the engineers on this site. If there were anything to cold fusion, it really wouldn't need a bunch of untrained idiots to promote it. -Mark -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:On deception
Mark, consider another example. How did quantum mechanics come about? Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be explained by the conventional physical theories of the day. Also, the early planetary model of an atom with a central nucleus and an orbiting electron did not fit the conventional theories of the day. The conventional theory of the day said that as the electron moved, it would lose energy, and the orbit would decay, and the atom would collapse! But orbits of electrons around atoms do not decay. Matter does not collapse. Atoms exist in tact. Conventional theory was at a loss to explain these, and other, phenomenon. Some said I do not believe what I am seeing. This cannot be true. Others said something more was needed. A new model called quantum mechanics was born. Quantum mechanical predictions correlated with what was seen in the lab, and the theory continues to be renovated today. That is what is being said here about cold fusion/LENR/LANR/quantum fusion/anomalous heat and transmutations. Current nuclear theory does not explain ALL the many effects that are seen in this science. Something more is needed. Cold fusion theorists are trying to figure out how to explain what they are seeing. Some people claim they have figured it out. But, until one of these theories is able to expain ALL the effects, and in addition, spell out the recipe on how to make this happen on-demand, at any scale, no theory can claim top dawg. This does not dismiss conventional nuclear theory. It does say, that something more is needed. Does this make any sense? Or, think of Chico Marx: Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes? Please don't give up Mark. Your voice is needed. Ruby On 5/31/13 1:59 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about LENR is also hand waving? [m] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Pre-loaded hydrogen fuel advancing technology
It is amazing that even though the science is still a mystery, there are increasing levels of engineering advancements building the technology. Wish I had time to study more http://coldfusionnow.org/pre-loaded-hydrogen-fuel-an-engineering-answer-for-efficiency-ease-and-safety/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it. On 5/30/13 7:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is the latest column from Gibbs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ This is pretty good, but it includes a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. Gibbs quoted someone and wrote: Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument … in fact, it’s not really an argument at all; it merely hand waves away the science. That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. This is _not_ hand waving. If it were, no one would accept that high temperature superconductivity exists. Before 1952, no one would have believed that cells reproduce, and before 1939, no one would have believed that the sun is undergoing a nuclear reaction. In science, nearly all discoveries begin when researchers first detect and then confirm an anomaly. That is, something that cannot be explained by theory. A theory is then developed or modified to explain the anomaly. You can never reject an anomaly because it seems to violate theory. When theory and replicated experiments conflict, the experiments always win, theory always loses. If we abandon this rule, or if we call it hand waving as Gibbs does here, progress in science will come to a halt. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: I don't think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs' statement after it which was: Unfortunately that's not a sound argument... Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs' statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson *From:*Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
Mark Gibbs writes: You completely miss my point ... Ruby's argument dimisses Ethan's argument by simply saying you're wrong and citing experimental evidence that isn't accepted outside of the LENR community. You're right, experiment trumps theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR experiments doesn't include one that you could hand to Ethan and say here you go, try it, it works. No, Mark, I am not saying simply you're wrong to Siegel. We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and the experimental evidence proves it. On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no confirmed model to explain them. This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware of. On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ruby: I don't think Jed was criticizing your statement, Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top it was Gibbs' statement after it which was: Unfortunately that's not a sound argument... Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs' statement because it implies that without a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight. It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced. Keep up the fight! -Mark Iverson *From:*Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't! I wrote that quote... Cold fusion has no definitive theory -- as yet, but the experimental evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a table-top http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ .. and stand by it.-- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Answering discovery news
I wrote this: http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ to answer this: http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm Any suggestions for improvement will be appreciated. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Back to the Papp Engine
Alan, Please look at Bob Rohner's project that in part wants to re-build the original Papp engine. He is in need of funding, and an electronics engineer to complete the work his brother was doing before he passed away. http://coldfusionnow.org/plasma-engine-reproduced-now-optimizing-for-efficiency/ This project is so worthy, I wish they had some support. Ruby On 5/24/13 5:38 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Does anyone have full access to Infinite Energy #51 http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/index.html -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
I had not seen this good defense before. I will ask the author if I can post up the chunk on cf. On 5/9/13 3:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) Henry H. Bauer* Abstract: ‘Pathological’ science implies scientific misconduct: it should not happen and the scientists concerned ought to know better. However, there are no clear and generally agreed definitions of pathological science or of scientific misconduct. The canonical exemplars of pathological science in chemistry (N-rays, polywater) as well as the recent case of cold fusion in electrochemistry involved research practices not clearly distinguishable from those in (revolutionary) science. The concept of ‘pathological science’ was put forth nearly half a century ago in a seminar and lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science). It is time to abandon the phrase. http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:IBM Stop Motion Film of Cu Atoms
It's blowing my mind to think how tiny this actually is. Anybody who thinks there is a difference between art and science doesn't know a damn thing about either. Sci-artists unite! On 5/1/13 11:42 AM, Ron Wormus wrote: Pretty Cool. http://io9.com/this-is-officially-the-worlds-tiniest-stop-motion-film-486198380?autoplay=1 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Maelstrom?
What is this? It really sucks up alot and the stuff doesn't appear to come back up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJpBqONgL28list=UU7KsOyQx3vyo8B-ta6_uLUQindex=4 Translation from Spanish: SWIRL SUCK ALL YOUR STEP .. AMAZING! 23 APRIL 2013 The video was recorded by Ja-nis ASTICS the April 18, 2013. In the video we can see how this vortex sucks everything in its path including ice and debris. (Continued on ... ) -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:NASA's cold fusion folly
The scrambled She has posted on http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2013/04/20/physics-week-in-review-april-20-2013/ On 4/20/13 6:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Oullette joined in the attack: https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/KdbdV5yAmRT - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:LENUCO slipped to second - need votes NOW
Please forward to all your friends and put LENR on the docket: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 SmrtPwrNet has 100 votes more for #1, and printable photovoltaics has 50 less for third. However you feel about this technology, we should be able to gather support for LENR to be heard! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:LENUCO slipped to second - need votes NOW
I'm bummed. Hope he doesn't try it a third time, cause I don't think I can put anymore time into another campaign like this. I just don't have enough friends. On 3/15/13 12:06 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: slipped to 3rd. lost. first used a facebook vote exchange site (not a bot, a human bot). 2nd used egyptian student network (more honest) We are the only technology based network... I agree that all that is a clown story, and I understand that some says it is not dign.. Anyway it can raise awareness if Miley is winning, and rejected anywat (as I expect). 2013/3/15 Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net mailto:rod...@comcast.net I just voted for George Miley. While I was at the site I refreshed my browser over a 15 minute period and the Printable Photovoltaics entry went up 20 votes and it just keeps rising and George is now in third place. I am a bit dubious of this voting. Robert Dorr At 09:37 AM 3/15/2013, you wrote: Please forward to all your friends and put LENR on the docket: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 SmrtPwrNet has 100 votes more for #1, and printable photovoltaics has 50 less for third. However you feel about this technology, we should be able to gather support for LENR to be heard!
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat effect t-shirt
I wore one up the North coast of California to Eureka after the The Believers screening in San Jose. On my way back down to LA, I stopped in the Solar Living Institute in Hopland to drop some CF advocacy. http://www.solarliving.org/ They had a picture of Nikola Tesla spray-painted on an outside structure, so I thought they might be open. I spoke for quite a bit with the Asst. Manager of the Real Goods store there, and used my t-shirt that I was wearing to indicate what cold fusion started out as, and what is being developed. It really worked well. I have to write up the report on that field trip... I will contact them again about possibly putting a Cold Fusion Now booth at their Earth Day Festival on April 20. Ruby On 3/14/13 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is sorta cute. http://coldfusionnow.org/store/anomalous-heat-effect-t-shirt/ -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
OK, it's another chance to speak on April 4 - at MIT! On 3/5/13 3:28 PM, Ruby wrote: I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hey Moab, thanks for the update. i'll post it up and let's get this guy some votes! Ruby On 2/8/13 2:49 AM, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
There was no other video of the NANOR publicly available other than Barry Simon's (that I know). Mitchell Swartz's two summary of the course posted on Cold Fusion Times was re-posted by me here: http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/ Hagelstein's video is of theoretical issues, and speaks of NANOR here and there for support, but there is no NANOR video included (I didn't get through it to the end though!) From the release on his website, it seems that there may be some video from the Swartz portion of the course soon. On 1/31/13 7:28 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Swartz has been very secretive. His web site: http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html http://world.std.com/%7Emica/jettech.html Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff. Probably the most info publicly available: http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/ And the video is AWOL. Sigh. [m] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:video: Peter Hagelstein Cold Fusion 101 Lectures
They are difficult to hear, better with earphones, but what a special treat to hear the soft-spoken Dr. Peter Hagelstein describe his research in MIT's IAP short course Cold Fusion 101. The slides alone show the line of thinking. http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos?flow=gridview=0 Thanks to Jeremy Rys who is attending the course for sharing this video. Apparently, some MIT students wandered in, too. Word's getting around -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Slate attacks cold fusion
Here's the response from Cold Fusion Now: http://coldfusionnow.org/charles-seife-confuses-reality-and-myth-with-attack-on-discoverers-of-cold-fusion/ Let's invite him to Cold Fusion 101! On 1/3/13 7:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is depressing. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.html For one thing, the history of fusion energy is filled with crazies, hucksters, and starry-eyed naifs chasing after dreams of solving the world's energy problems. One of the most famous of all, Martin Fleischmann, died earlier this year. Along with a colleague, Stanley Pons, Fleischmann thought that he had converted hydrogen into helium in a beaker in his laboratory, never mind that if he had been correct he would have released so much energy that he and his labmates would have been fricasseed by the radiation coming out of the device. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:new video: Heinz Klostermann on the Papp engine
While this is not cold fusion, I had an opportunity to video a new energy lab, and took it. I will continue to create portraits of new energy researchers, if it comes my way. I see cold fusion as the most probable breakthrough for the near future, but the Papp engine may not be far behind, and is a technology that could operate alongside it. This is the sixth movie I have made this year, all by my lonesome since my cameraman/editor left me to pursue more lucrative endeavors. I'm getting better with each edit, with the goal of entertaining and educating. As a Clean Energy Advocate, I do not grill or snake scientists. I am not a detective (not yet anyway). I ask, they answer. I am grateful for all the help I continue to get in learning to ask the right questions. Cold Fusion Now wants to remain positive, and rated G for the kids! I want to show the kids, the students, and those who are looking for inspiration: What does a new energy lab look like? How do researchers in this field operate? What kind of research is going on? What kind of energy solutions are being pursued and, what is the level of development? This video shows one team's engines in development, an explanation of its operational principles, however incomplete, in their own words, and what they plan to do next. It has a light-science background for the general public. While the video does not appear to show over-unity by examining the speed of the piston, I would not dismiss this whole technology through Youtube analysis. I am convinced by what I've read that Joseph Papp had something going on. Now, a handful of teams are trying to reproduce it. For all our sake, I only hope they succeed. Please direct your technical questions about the Pulser to Heinz Klostermann at heinri...@me.com. Pseudo-skeptics have held the power of position, but now they are irrelevant - irrelevant I say! Maybe I don't have the right to say that, but the fact is, the noisy din of useless information does not carry their protestations far, nor does their message have penetration or staying power, as they did pre-Internet. Yes, the after-image of their sad, destructive paradigm still prevents the MSM from reporting on the developments in cold fusion and new energy; legislators and policy-makers are woefully uninformed and do not fund this research; pseudo-skeptics have chosen to be die-hards, and they will, as all old paradigms do. We are building a new house, so when the old one collapses, it'll be ready to move in! After a short break over the next couple weeks, 2013 projects for Cold Fusion Now include: * more cold fusion video interviews as dictated by my geographic location on the west coast, * a possible mini-conference in Los Angeles, * activist visits to schools and colleges in the So Cal area (Caltech look out!), * attendance at ICCF-18 to conduct one-on-one interviews, * putting next year's 2014 History of Cold Fusion Calendar together with a an awesome new theme (not tellin yet!) but it's really cool. You can help support my efforts by purchasing a Calendar here: http://coldfusionnow.org/store/2013-history-of-cold-fusion-calendar/ Thank you for all the feedback. Your comments help to make my art more communicative. Happy New Year! Ruby On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Interesting video, but frustrating. Klostermann seems like a sweet old guy who is having fun working with the Papp concept. He's done all kinds of things, but the type of cannon he has built, and that we saw firing so many times, could easily be arranged so that energy output is measured. He's planing on using a government design for an electric generator, and predicts power output, etc., yet he's not done the most basic measurement, and he acknowledges that, but he seems to imply that it would be expensive. No, it would be about as easy as what he's already done, in fact, easier. The output of his cannon is the kinetic energy of the projectile, and that is easily measured. If the kinetic energy of the projectile is as we would expect, less than the energy dumped into the cannon by the ionizatin sources, then neither would a generator work to generate excess power. Yes, it would generate power, but less than the electrical power used to operate it. Ruby asked him the question, he didn't answer it. She's very polite and did not push him. Looks like she's having fun. Marshall Plan to support this is not going to happen unless someone shows over unity, convincingly. I recommend that Cold Fusion Now stay away from these very shaky Alternative Energy claims, and stick to LENR. That's where political support could be useful and effective. Otherwise pseudoskeptics, faced with some actual possible breakthrough, politically, will use support for something ilke the Papp engine to attack the credibility of the organization. At 12:39 PM 12/31/2012, Ruby wrote: video
