Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
*Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care*! To respond to a theory is a very friendly act. It shows that the theory is granted the respect that comes from attention. The author of the theory can use friendly criticism to perfect his thinking. The worst thing that can happen is that the theory causes the thread to be deleted, the author banned from the site and the theory to be classified as a product of a con man. Respectfully: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Te Chung chung...@ymail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On *Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Yes, I am impressed with Feynman, but am I supposed to be impressed by you? Tell us, do you even have a Physics degree; undergraduate or otherwise? Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:23 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 10:37 AM 8/16/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: RE: ChemEng's hypothesis, Abd, at least he backs up his hypothesis with a list of references... all *191* of them! So he is probably MORE current on the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis than you, so I'd suggest you visit his website and read his well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. I don't know beans about his hypothesis, only that he's been having a lot of fun with it. Gremlins. I actually think it's a great name. Some LENR researchers were not amused. What I write is generally most useful -- or most entertaining -- for by people who have some detachment, who aren't stuck on right and wrong and other fantasies. I've assumed that Chemical Engineer is in that category. I'm not at all motivated to read the web site at this point. If Chemical Engineer asks me some specific question about it, that would be another matter. Of course I'm an arrogant know-it-all. Or, since I *don't* know it all, perhaps I'm merely arrogant. Comes with the territory, my story is that if you had the childhood I had, you'd be arrogant, too. Of course, it's just a story. I made it up. The test scores I did not make up.
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Yes, Looks like http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg69031.html says it all. I detect the wisdom of Gulinski theories in this enlightened atmosphere. Love, Candy - Original Message - From: Te Chung Sent: 08/17/12 04:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On *Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Q.E.D. At 01:54 AM 8/17/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. Yes. Generally, I admit the truth, regardless of how it might look. Basically, I trust the truth more than I trust myself. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; That does not follow. He's explained his theory on this list and elsewhere. I have a general understanding of it. It's not clear to me that even he has a *specific* understanding of it. He has indicated as much. It's an *idea*. He's now been gathering support for the idea, finding this or that. He'll learn something and maybe some others will. YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. No, I say what I see and understand, and sometimes what I don't understand. As if you're the expert is a projection, made up by Jojo. I am, relative to some, *an* expert on cold fusion. What CE is proposing might or might not be cold fusion, and CE's theory seems to have been proposed in a bit of a vacuum, as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Others have pointed out problems, on a private list where subscribers are far more knowledgeable than the norm here. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. Don't dive into shallow waters, then, Jojo. You might damage your brain, not that this is much of a real risk for you. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. Great stuff. Cast the beam out of your own eye, first, Jojo. You gain nothing by ranting as you do, except regret, later. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer Jojo, here, imagines that I'm in contempt of CE. On the contrary, I consider him a friend, and wrote to -- and about -- him as such. Jojo doesn't understand this, yet he is *full* of contempt, it drips from his posts here. The term for this is hypocrite. It's the greatest danger we face, it's how we can harm ourselves where nobody else could harm us. You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Remember, CE isn't complaining, Jojo is. CE wants reaction to his idea, advice, consideration, and he's gotten it. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Well, that's up to you. I was on a train with a young man, and started talking with him and when he found out that I'd been with Feynman, he practically started levitating, he was so excited. Technically, I did study physics with Feynman, though only as part of a class consisting of every freshman at Cal Tech, Fall, 1961, plus the next year when we were sophomores. Feynman also visited Page House, where I lived those two years, and I heard his famous stories from him. It might be more accurate that I studied *Feynman*, and his approach to life, rather than physics. Yes, I am impressed with Feynman, but am I supposed to be impressed by you? Tell us, do you even have a Physics degree; undergraduate or otherwise? No. None. Not in any field. I thought I'd made that clear. I never went back to college after leaving Cal Tech the first term of my third year there. You could say that I was bored, that's as valid as any other explanation. What you see is what you get. Look, when I've studied a field, I can talk with experts, ask them meaningful questions, and, once in a while, bring up something they haven't thought of. That's why *experts* generally accept me. And that's why *non-experts* sometimes don't. This has to do with many fields, not just cold fusion. That's why I can ask questions of the best-known scientists in the field and they answer them. They may not always agree with me, but they trust me. It was gratifying, after leaving formal science almost fifty years ago, to have my name appear in Naturwissenschaften, as a credit in the Storms review (2010), just before the references. It's been gratifying to be invited to conferences, and, just out, I'm likely to be at ICCF 18. Presentation to be determined, I have some ideas, or I might just be there as a reporter. People like Jojo have always had a hard time with me. I need to look at that. My goal, generally, is to communicate, and I'm obviously failing to communicate with Jojo. Maybe that's because I'm not always writing for him, I'm sometimes writing for everyone else here. Of course he's not going to like that. However, I have written
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
LOL... This made my day. The self proclaimed LENR/Cold Fusion expert does not even have a degree in the sciences, let alone in physics, where he proclaims himself to be an expert. Why do you consider yourself to be an expert without a degree? So taking one freshman class under Feynman makes you an expert in your eyes. Funny how that is true in your eyes. Oh, that's right, shallow waters are too noisy to hear the truth. And don't you dare lie to our colleages here that you are trying to communicate with me, or give me advice. That's a blatant lie. What does allah say about lying? Oh, that's right, he does not condemn lying. You are not interested in communicating with me; your intent is to take swipes at me and throw insults even after I have unsubsribed and let you have the last word. You took not one, not two swipes at me after I had unsubscribed to get away from your neurosis. You continued the insults after I was gone. When others who had a conflict with me took their last word, as I said I would allow, the conflict ended and that's water under the bridge. Yet, It seems that a continued conflict is what you want, therefore, a continued conflict is what you will get. I would sooner unsubscribe from this list again but it seems like I may have to postpone those plans to address many of your disinformation directed towards me. I have always said I will not initiate any attacks but I will finish one. I am sick of bullies like you, and frankly, I don't have to put up with it, so I am responding. And remember, an insult from you directed at me is what prompted my re-subscribing to this forum. And I will stay in this list until such time as you stop your lies and insults. Bill is free to ban me but I will come back everytime to answer each and every one of your insults. So, forget about any communication, it's too late for that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Q.E.D. At 01:54 AM 8/17/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. Yes. Generally, I admit the truth, regardless of how it might look. Basically, I trust the truth more than I trust myself. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; That does not follow. He's explained his theory on this list and elsewhere. I have a general understanding of it. It's not clear to me that even he has a *specific* understanding of it. He has indicated as much. It's an *idea*. He's now been gathering support for the idea, finding this or that. He'll learn something and maybe some others will. YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. No, I say what I see and understand, and sometimes what I don't understand. As if you're the expert is a projection, made up by Jojo. I am, relative to some, *an* expert on cold fusion. What CE is proposing might or might not be cold fusion, and CE's theory seems to have been proposed in a bit of a vacuum, as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Others have pointed out problems, on a private list where subscribers are far more knowledgeable than the norm here. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. Don't dive into shallow waters, then, Jojo. You might damage your brain, not that this is much of a real risk for you. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. Great stuff. Cast the beam out of your own eye, first, Jojo. You gain nothing by ranting as you do, except regret, later. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer Jojo, here, imagines that I'm in contempt of CE. On the contrary, I consider him a friend, and wrote to -- and about -- him as such. Jojo doesn't understand this, yet he is *full* of contempt, it drips from his posts here. The term for this is hypocrite. It's the greatest danger we face, it's how we can harm ourselves where nobody else could harm us. You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Remember, CE isn't complaining, Jojo is. CE wants reaction to his idea, advice, consideration, and he's gotten it. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Well, that's up to you. I was on a train
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just can't stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so called LENR Expert. Last time I checked, science and the scientific method involves First, coming up with a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena, then testing your hypothesis with experiments. And this is exactly what CE is doing. He has come up with a hypothesis and I believe he intends to test it with experiments. He has graciously shared his theory for peer review and discussion. He has done the first steps of what a good scientist should be doing. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that his theory is new and a little incomplete, but CE has made no pretensions otherwise. But instead of contributing to the discussion about the theory and advancing our understanding, Abd has resorted to envious criticism. This verbal diarrhea is symptomatic of what is wrong with scienctists nowadays (not that I consider this dude to be a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.) Too much pride and false expertise being thrown around. This dude Abd thinks he is an expert in LENR, and criticizes anything that he did not come up with. He did it with Axil and now with CE. Yet, he himself has not really come up with anything to advance our understanding of this field. Nor is he involved in any experiment that we know of, to help explain the phenomena. Just all talk and verbal diarrhea and criticisms and insults. Frankly, I am sick of all talk and no action from this dude. Though I do not consider myself an expert, at least I am doing something to help explain this phenomena. Much much more that what Abd has done with his pretentious criticisms and verbal diarrhea. Jojo PS: Tell us Abd exactly what your expertise is. A quick google search reveals Abd to be a college dropout who's claim to famed is that he studied physics. Now, he is a wikipedia editor for Cold Fusion. So, this is the background of our Wiki expert. You know what my mother always says; Shallow waters run noisy. LOL ... Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:42:38 -0700 At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the reaction conditions and details. The problem has engaged many highly knowledgeable people, including theoretical physicists, specialists in quantum mechanics, and Nobel Prize winners. Nobody has yet come up with a theory, to date, that is satisfying, that successfully functions to predict experimental outcomes, particularly when we look for quantitative predictions of any accuracy. Sometimes theory has predicted a general outcome. For example, Miles was aware of Preparata's theory, that predicted helium as the primary ash, when he did his work to demonstrate the heat/helium correlation. But since helium was already on the table as a normal product of fusion (albeit at a different branching ratio), this can't be seen as much of a confirmation of Preparata's theory. And I'm not even familiar with Preparata's actual theory, it's not given much shrift today. Most of the early theories looked to the lattice as the reaction site, it was only known later that the FPHE is a surface effect. If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the World! Cart before the horse, CE. We need more science, first. We need to know more experimental results. You seem to think that the obstacle is a lack of explanatory theory. No, it's been pointed out by many that we have too many theories, and not enough testing. Many of the existing theories have been inadequately developed to be used to make specific predictions that can discriminate between theories. Really, many of these theories are only conjectures, that *possibly* this or that phenomenon is involved. I'm not seeing anything different about your gremlin (singularity) theory. You simply assert possibility, and you are asserting it about a phenomenon where we don't have experimental evidence that the phenomenon even exists, and what consequences it would have. It's quite convenient for the formation of new theories. Since nobody really knows how small singularities would behave, just make up whatever behavior you can imagine might be so. You can then explain all kinds of anomalies. However, producing real value, in terms of increasing our predictive capacity, the goal of theory development in science, is quite another matter, more difficult. My theory explains the following observations: Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations
RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
-ph/0110163]. [161] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 697, 434 (2011) [arXiv:1012.3375 [hep-ex]]. [162] The CMS collaborations, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-071, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1369209 [163] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006). [hep-ph/0603175]. [164] J. Alwall, P. Demin, S. de Visscher, R. Frederix, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, T. Plehn, D. L. Rainwater et al., JHEP 0709, 028 (2007). [arXiv:0706.2334 [hep-ph]]. [165] S. Agostinelli et al. [ GEANT4 Collaboration ], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250-303 (2003). [166] S. C. Park, Phys. Lett. B701, 587-590 (2011). [arXiv:1104.5129 [hep-ph]]. [167] V. P. Frolov, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D66, 084002 (2002). [hep-th/0206046]. [168] V. P. Frolov and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett 89 (2002) 151302, [169] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic,JHEP 06 (2004) 057, [170] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 3483-3498, [171] V. Cardoso, E. Berti, and M. Cavaglia, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) L61-R84, [172] G. T. Horowitz and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0310281]. [173] S. B. Giddings, arXiv:1108.2015 [hep-th]. [174] E. Greenwood and D. Stojkovic, JHEP 0806, 042 (2008) [arXiv:0802.4087 [gr-qc]]. [175] S. B. Giddings and M. Lippert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 124019 (2004) [hep-th/0402073]. [176] D. Gottesman and J. Preskill, JHEP 0403, 026 (2004) [hep-th/0311269]. [177] P. Meade and L. Randall, JHEP 0805, 003 (2008) [arXiv:0708.3017 [hep-ph]]. [178] L. A. Anchordoqui, J. L. Feng, H. Goldberg and A. D. Shapere, Phys. Lett. B 594, 363 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311365]. [179] D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 011603 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409124]. [180] D. C. Dai, G. D. Starkman and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104037 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605085]. [181] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 011101 (2007). [gr-qc/0605058]. [182] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 154005 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0322 [hep-th]]. [183] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009). [arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]]. [184] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D70, 124006 (2004). [gr-qc/0408099]. [185] W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature 238 (1972) 211. [186] V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D70, 044039 (2004). [hep- th/0404096]. [187] J. G. Rosa, JHEP 1006, 015 (2010). [arXiv:0912.1780 [hep-th]]. [188] R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D82, 084003 (2010). [arXiv:1004.3772 [hep-th]]. [189] P. Nicolini, E. Winstanley, [arXiv:1108.4419 [hep-ph]]. [190] V. Cardoso et. al., [arXiv:1201.5118[hep-th]]. [191] Seong Chan Park, arXiv:1203.4683v1 [hep-ph] -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the reaction conditions and details. snip
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
, 135001 (2010). [arXiv:0908.4234 [gr-qc]]. [154] J. N. Goldberg, A. J. MacFarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 8, 2155 (1967). [155] D. A. Leahy, W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D19, 3509-3515 (1979). [156] E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285-298 (1985). [157] E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav. 6 (1989) 1057. [158] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, Phys. Lett. B680, 365-370 (2009). [arXiv:0907.1511 [hep-th]]. [159] D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 011603 (2005). [hep-ph/0409124]. [160] K. m. Cheung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 221602 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110163]. [161] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 697, 434 (2011) [arXiv:1012.3375 [hep-ex]]. [162] The CMS collaborations, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-071, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1369209 [163] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006). [hep-ph/0603175]. [164] J. Alwall, P. Demin, S. de Visscher, R. Frederix, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, T. Plehn, D. L. Rainwater et al., JHEP 0709, 028 (2007). [arXiv:0706.2334 [hep-ph]]. [165] S. Agostinelli et al. [ GEANT4 Collaboration ], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250-303 (2003). [166] S. C. Park, Phys. Lett. B701, 587-590 (2011). [arXiv:1104.5129 [hep-ph]]. [167] V. P. Frolov, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D66, 084002 (2002). [hep-th/0206046]. [168] V. P. Frolov and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett 89 (2002) 151302, [169] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic,JHEP 06 (2004) 057, [170] V. P. Frolov, D. V. Fursaev, and D. Stojkovic, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 3483-3498, [171] V. Cardoso, E. Berti, and M. Cavaglia, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) L61-R84, [172] G. T. Horowitz and J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0310281]. [173] S. B. Giddings, arXiv:1108.2015 [hep-th]. [174] E. Greenwood and D. Stojkovic, JHEP 0806, 042 (2008) [arXiv:0802.4087 [gr-qc]]. [175] S. B. Giddings and M. Lippert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 124019 (2004) [hep-th/0402073]. [176] D. Gottesman and J. Preskill, JHEP 0403, 026 (2004) [hep-th/0311269]. [177] P. Meade and L. Randall, JHEP 0805, 003 (2008) [arXiv:0708.3017 [hep-ph]]. [178] L. A. Anchordoqui, J. L. Feng, H. Goldberg and A. D. Shapere, Phys. Lett. B 594, 363 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311365]. [179] D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 011603 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409124]. [180] D. C. Dai, G. D. Starkman and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104037 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0605085]. [181] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 011101 (2007). [gr-qc/0605058]. [182] V. P. Frolov, D. Kubiznak, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 154005 (2008). [arXiv:0802.0322 [hep-th]]. [183] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009). [arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]]. [184] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D70, 124006 (2004). [gr-qc/0408099]. [185] W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature 238 (1972) 211. [186] V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D70, 044039 (2004). [hep- th/0404096]. [187] J. G. Rosa, JHEP 1006, 015 (2010). [arXiv:0912.1780 [hep-th]]. [188] R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D82, 084003 (2010). [arXiv:1004.3772 [hep-th]]. [189] P. Nicolini, E. Winstanley, [arXiv:1108.4419 [hep-ph]]. [190] V. Cardoso et. al., [arXiv:1201.5118[hep-th]]. [191] Seong Chan Park, arXiv:1203.4683v1 [hep-ph] -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the reaction conditions and details. snip -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Yes, Peter, that would be the next step. Give him some time! He's just now taken time to write his thoughts up in a well-referenced manner so others can begin to review it. I hope he does indeed follow-up with a paper which explores experimental ramifications and how his hypothesis might be tested. ChemE, have you thought of submitting it to arXiv, or some other open peer-review site? -Mark From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:51 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus A nice theory actually, however how will we apply Galileo's Principles (the Scientific Method) to it? Suppose it is 100% true, what does this mean for the experimenters and for those who want to invest in LENR energy? I don't want a fast answer... Peter On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: RE: ChemEng's hypothesis, Abd, at least he backs up his hypothesis with a list of references... all *191* of them! So he is probably MORE current on the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis than you, so I'd suggest you visit his website and read his well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. -Mark Iverson PS: ChemE, hope you don't mind my including your refs here... kind of adds to the impact. ;-) [1] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998) [arXiv:hep- ph/9803315]. [2] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004, [3] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398]. [4] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221]. [5] W. D. Goldberger, M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922-4925 (1999). [hep-ph/9907447]. [6] S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D66, 106006 (2002). [hep-th/0105097]. [7] S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [hep-th/0301240]. [8] R. Penrose unpublished (1974) [9] G. 't Hooft, Phys. Lett. B 198, 61 (1987). [10] K. S. Thorne, in Magic without Magic: John Archbald Wheeler, edited by J. Klauder Freeman, San Francisco, 1972) [11] T. Banks and W. Fischler, [hep-th/9906038]. [12] S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 056010 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219]. [13] S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295]. [14] B. Koch, M. Bleicher and H. Stocker, arXiv:0807.3349 [hep-ph]. [15] S. B. Giddings and M. L. Mangano, Phys. Rev. D 78, 035009 (2008) [arXiv:0806.3381 [hep-ph]]. [16] P. C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and a. J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 96-104, [17] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 2333-346. [18] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220 (1975). [19] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 191-197. [20] R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 499 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0003118]. [21] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064025 (2003) [Erratum-ibid. D 69, 049901 (2004)] [arXiv:hep-th/0212108]. [22] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, arXiv:hep-ph/0501210. [23] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124039 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503052]. [24] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124022 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0602188]. [25] C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, Phys. Lett. B 633, 106 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0503010]. [26] G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, JHEP 0509, 049 (2005). [hep-th/0507274]. [27] M. Casals, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, JHEP 0602, 051 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0511163]. [28] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, arXiv:hep-th/0608193. [29] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, JHEP 0806, 071 (2008). [arXiv:0801.4910 [hep-th]]. [30] M. O. P. Sampaio, JHEP 1002, 042 (2010). [arXiv:0911.0688 [hep-th]]. [31] M. O. P. Sampaio, JHEP 0910, 008 (2009). [arXiv:0907.5107 [hep-th]]. [32] P. Kanti, N. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D82, 024039 (2010). [arXiv:1003.5125 [hep-th]]. [33] T. Kobayashi, M. Nozawa, Y. -i. Takamizu, Phys. Rev. D77, 044022 (2008). [arXiv:0711.1395 [hep-th]]. [34] M. Rogatko, A. Szyplowska, Phys. Rev. D79, 104005 (2009). [arXiv:0904.4544 [hep-th]]. [35] A. S. Cornell, W. Naylor and M. Sasaki, JHEP 0602, 012 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0510009]. [36] V. Cardoso, M. Cavaglia and L. Gualtieri, JHEP 0602, 021 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512116]. [37] P. Kanti, H. Kodama, R. A. Konoplya, N. Pappas, A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D80, 084016 (2009). [arXiv:0906.3845 [hep-th]]. [38] D. C. Dai, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, C. Issever, E. Rizvi and J. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D 77, 076007 (2008) [arXiv:0711.3012 [hep-ph]]. [39] C. M. Harris, P. Richardson and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0308, 033 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0307305]. [40] J. A. Frost, J. R. Gaunt, M. O. P. Sampaio, M
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
There are legal entanglements with black hole production: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417008/the-case-of-the-collider-and-the-great-black-hole/ The experts are either afraid for their livelihoods or afraid for their lives, writes Johnson. One way round this is to carry out a cost-benefit analysis but this soon runs into problems too. How do you value the future of entire planet? You could argue that it is infinite in which case any risk that it will be destroyed, no matter how tiny, is too much. Another argument, well established in law, is that there can be no award to a dead person's estate. Death is simply not a redressable injury under American tort law, says Johnson. By this argument, the downside of a particle-accelerator disaster that destroys the planet--assuming it is quick--is nothing. The cost-benefit analysis simply blows up in our faces. Do we want LENR saddled with this sort of albatross? On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Yes, Peter, that would be the next step. Give him some time! He’s just now taken time to write his thoughts up in a well-referenced manner so others can begin to review it… I hope he does indeed follow-up with a paper which explores experimental ramifications and how his hypothesis might be tested… ** ** ChemE, have you thought of submitting it to arXiv, or some other open peer-review site? ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, August 16, 2012 8:51 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus ** ** A nice theory actually, however how will we apply Galileo's Principles (the Scientific Method) to it? Suppose it is 100% true, what does this mean for the experimenters and for those who want to invest in LENR energy? I don't want a fast answer... Peter On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: RE: ChemEng's hypothesis, Abd, at least he backs up his hypothesis with a list of references... all *191* of them! So he is probably MORE current on the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis than you, so I'd suggest you visit his website and read his well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. -Mark Iverson PS: ChemE, hope you don't mind my including your refs here... kind of adds to the impact. ;-) [1] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998) [arXiv:hep- ph/9803315]. [2] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004, [3] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398]. [4] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221]. [5] W. D. Goldberger, M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922-4925 (1999). [hep-ph/9907447]. [6] S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D66, 106006 (2002). [hep-th/0105097]. [7] S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [hep-th/0301240]. [8] R. Penrose unpublished (1974) [9] G. 't Hooft, Phys. Lett. B 198, 61 (1987). [10] K. S. Thorne, in Magic without Magic: John Archbald Wheeler, edited by J. Klauder Freeman, San Francisco, 1972) [11] T. Banks and W. Fischler, [hep-th/9906038]. [12] S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 056010 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219]. [13] S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295]. [14] B. Koch, M. Bleicher and H. Stocker, arXiv:0807.3349 [hep-ph]. [15] S. B. Giddings and M. L. Mangano, Phys. Rev. D 78, 035009 (2008) [arXiv:0806.3381 [hep-ph]]. [16] P. C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and a. J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 96-104, [17] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 2333-346. [18] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220 (1975). [19] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 191-197. [20] R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 499 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0003118]. [21] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064025 (2003) [Erratum-ibid. D 69, 049901 (2004)] [arXiv:hep-th/0212108]. [22] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, arXiv:hep-ph/0501210. [23] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124039 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503052]. [24] D. Ida, K. y. Oda and S. C. Park, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124022 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0602188]. [25] C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, Phys. Lett. B 633, 106 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0503010]. [26] G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti, E. Winstanley, JHEP 0509, 049 (2005). [hep-th/0507274]. [27] M. Casals, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, JHEP 0602, 051 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0511163]. [28] M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Mark, Yes I would like to post it on arxiv, I need a sponsor in the physics area. Do you know of any? I am cleaning up the document some and want to make sure i get all of the references, etc. I do not fault Abd. He has years of frustration built up
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Mark, I have to very very very very very strongly disagree with this crazy statement. This is ridiculous. He does NOT look like an arrogant know-it-all. HE IS AN ARROGANT KNOW-IT-ALL. Looks like I wasn't the only one, his last post did not rub correctly. Jojo PS. Does anyone know what his background is? What is his background that he thinks he knows a lot about LENR/Cold Fusion, or anything for that matter, to ridicule those who clearly are more qualified than him. Does anyone know what his college degree is?Oh, that's right, he studied Physics under Feynman.OK. I stand corrected, he's definitely an expert. - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:37 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Hello Chemical Eng, Ive a little question about your theory: Does your theory explain how NAE spreads over the lattice once the reaction is triggered? It could be also a misunderstanding of experimental results. Another question arises when Im writing this: Does your theory explain the temperature minimum necessary to initiate the reaction? This temperature looks like to be bonded to the Debye temperature. Best wishes for the promotion of your theory, Arnaud _ From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: jeudi 16 août 2012 20:03 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night.
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
At 02:06 AM 8/16/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just can't stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so called LENR Expert. Sorry, honey, I'm late for dinner, but Someone is Wrong on the Internet. I tend to write in response to issues, questions, comments. Occasionally I write something original. I also research my topics, it can take a long time to write, but I also comment on what I've found as if the reader might be interested. I'm only writing for interested readers, not necessarily for everyone. Jojo, here, reports a highly negative response to my writing. He's not the first, and he's not the first to report this and then to continue eating the diarrhea, to continue getting sick from it, and to complain at length. Jojo, consistently, has refused to look at himself, at his own behavior. In his world, anyone who points out the blatant errors in his assumptions and writings is an idiot, Obot believer in obviously faked PDFs, believer in evolution against all evidence, any of many situations that really show us how Jojo is teetering on the edge of a cliff, caught in the web of what he firmly believes, against all evidence. I.e., what he sees in others. Cast the beam out of your own eye, first, Jojo. Didn't someone you supposedly revere say something like that? I'll never attack your real faith and your actual reverence. What I've pointed out is your hypocrisy, as your Friend would point out. You would crucify your friends, as you did before. Isn't being a Christian taking that on, taking responsibility for it, and living the truth of it? Last time I checked, science and the scientific method involves First, coming up with a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena, then testing your hypothesis with experiments. And this is exactly what CE is doing. He has come up with a hypothesis and I believe he intends to test it with experiments. Jojo may believe that, but I don't see that from CE. CE is hypothesizing, having fun. Nothing wrong with that, per se. CE is free to contradict me; after all, this immediate issue is about what CE intends to do, and he would be the world's foremost authority on that. He has graciously shared his theory for peer review and discussion. He has done the first steps of what a good scientist should be doing. Of course, I am cognizant of the fact that his theory is new and a little incomplete, but CE has made no pretensions otherwise. I have not accused CE of any pretense. A little incomplete, though is a major understatement. So what? But instead of contributing to the discussion about the theory and advancing our understanding, Abd has resorted to envious criticism. I wrote in response to CE, giving him the benefit of a few years of study and research. (I'm, relatively speaking, an expert on cold fusion because I've written about the field since 2009, reading extensively and discussing it with experts, and I had the scientific background to understand the issues.) CE doesn't seem to mind, he appreciated it. He will do, with this, what he chooses. Jaro has no clue what is really going on here, he's seeing everything through his own illness and allergy to criticism. He expects others to react as he reacts. This verbal diarrhea is symptomatic of what is wrong with scienctists nowadays (not that I consider this dude to be a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.) That's contradictory, you know. Most scientists don't write at length for a somewhat-general audience as I do. Whether I'm a scientist or not depends on definitions. It's not my profession. I was simply trained in the sciences. Usually I claim to be a writer, and I've been an editor, professionally and otherwise. Sometimes I write on certain sciences, especially where I have some unusual experience. Sometime, for example, I might write about the normal central scotoma. Do you know that it is fairly easy to directly see it? You read it here first. (A highly competent optometrist I told about this certainly did not know that. What it takes is not difficult, simply unusual. I stumbled across it. I notice stuff that others don't notice, sometimes.) Too much pride and false expertise being thrown around. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This dude Abd thinks he is an expert in LENR, and criticizes anything that he did not come up with. That's preposterous. I comment on the comments of others, sometimes identifying errors in them. Most of what I write about is not original with me, though some is. Others do the same for me, by the way. I'm subscribed to the mailing list for LENR researchers, having been invited. In other words, they think of me as one of them, and I actually function that way. I was credited in the Storms review (2010) in Naturwissenschaften, because of editorial work I did with that article. I'm involved in current
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
20120816 22:15 Abd Ul, appreciate Your elegant, determined response. Re CE it is my -and others- impression, that with LENR we have an overabundace of theories, to explain the somewhat scant evidences. Now the problem is, that the solutions do not match the evidences available. Both parties -the theoretical as well as the experimental- have some homework to do. Not just demonstrate an effect from the experimental side, but also take care of the minute details, eg. with all those observations of transmutations. Eg., if DGTG hypothesizes some three-stage process, loosely related to temperatures 100-200 -- 400-600 -- 600 where Peter Gluck is the most trustable reporter to date, (and I have a lot of trust in his sincerity,) then DGTG should separate the phases and study them. Which they won't do in depth, because they are a commercial entity. Similar with Rossi. Celani, with his scientific background, is not afraid to bake small bread, so to say. Demonstrating some reliable 20 Watt and COP 1.5, and not 10kW with COP 20. This is honesty. Appreciate that, and this sparrow in the hand makes me happier than the dove at the roof. The rest is rumor or unfounded optimism. -- Now to the theoretical side. No wonder that with scarce experimental evidence theories abound. Just look at UFO phenomena, where the situation is put to the extreme. We have no lack of beautiful theories, who just lack some core evidence. String theory, or the theory of everything of Burkhart Heim, which I find extremely interesting, but on a personal level. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim . (Not much of his works is translated to English. He might very well be sort of an ueber-Heisenberg of the 21st century.) Because he is dead since 10years he cannot be accused of ego-boosting. Being dead has its -ahem- positive side. But who am I to know? It is clear that CE has to be convinced of his theory, like others, who emphasize the Rydberg aspect, and others, like Mills Hydrino. This more often than not resembles a 'beauty contest', which is an ill-conceived criterion, if matters get ugly. (DGTG three-stage) This is all in the pool of options in an over/(under?) determined situation. As said: Both sides should be humble and put forth their demands, to deliver what is requested --sound experimental evidence including the fineprint-- adequate theory, open to scrutiny and falsification. We are not quite there, right? The 'consumer' side --someone who just wants to buy a 10kW reactor at the cheapest price to support his hedonism, is what interests me the least. Guenter Von: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:36 Donnerstag, 16.August 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 02:06 AM 8/16/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I had unsubscribed and never intending to repost here again but I just can't stand the pretentious verbal diarrhea of this self-appointed so called LENR Expert. Sorry, honey, I'm late for dinner, but Someone is Wrong on the Internet. I tend to write in response to issues, questions, comments. Occasionally I write something original. I also research my topics, it can take a long time to write, but I also comment on what I've found as if the reader might be interested. I'm only writing for interested readers, not necessarily for everyone.
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
At 12:42 PM 8/16/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: Mark, Yes I would like to post it on arxiv, I need a sponsor in the physics area. Do you know of any? I am cleaning up the document some and want to make sure i get all of the references, etc. I do not fault Abd. He has years of frustration built up Ah, whatever. Doesn't feel like that over here. I just say it like I see it. Some like that, some don't. So new?
RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
At 10:37 AM 8/16/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: RE: ChemEng's hypothesis, Abd, at least he backs up his hypothesis with a list of references... all *191* of them! So he is probably MORE current on the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis than you, so I'd suggest you visit his website and read his well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. I don't know beans about his hypothesis, only that he's been having a lot of fun with it. Gremlins. I actually think it's a great name. Some LENR researchers were not amused. What I write is generally most useful -- or most entertaining -- for by people who have some detachment, who aren't stuck on right and wrong and other fantasies. I've assumed that Chemical Engineer is in that category. I'm not at all motivated to read the web site at this point. If Chemical Engineer asks me some specific question about it, that would be another matter. Of course I'm an arrogant know-it-all. Or, since I *don't* know it all, perhaps I'm merely arrogant. Comes with the territory, my story is that if you had the childhood I had, you'd be arrogant, too. Of course, it's just a story. I made it up. The test scores I did not make up.
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
I wish I were as sure of my theory as you guys sound. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3208v2.pdf On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
[Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions- the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus. It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the World! My theory explains the following observations: Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect. Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation to Austin. Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation. Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been witnessed in most all anomalous heat events. The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani. Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons. Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen the radiations energy. Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The radiation energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions. The “heat after death” syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations. Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions- the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus. It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
I forgot one: Embrittlement. On-going Hawking radiation within a structure will gradually decay its integrity due to local heat effects as well as further collapse and transmutations of local atomic structures. This has been witnessed in Mr. Celani's wire. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the World! My theory explains the following observations: Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect. Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation to Austin. Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation. Hawking Radiation should emit RELATIVELY low energy level radiation due to quantum gravity redshifting of the radiation as it escapes. This has been witnessed in most all anomalous heat events. The amount of energy released can be great. This has been witnessed in the Intelligentry/Papp Engine as well as claimed by Rossi, DGT and Celani. Since Hawking Radiation obeys e=mc2, very high levels of energy may be released as the newly formed singularity seeks thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium within its environment. Some of this radiation may also be elementry atomic particles such as quarks and gluons. Hawking radiation may create Fission and Fusion products within the near vicinity. Since this radiation covers a wide spectrum, it will bombard the local environment with low level, wide spectrum radiation which over time should transmute additional elements. The good new is that the quantum gravitational pull of the singularity will lessen the radiations energy. Collapse of nearby matter by falling into the singularity may lead to additional elements being transmuted in the local vicinity. The radiation energy from that will also be redshifted to weaker energy emissions. The “heat after death” syndrome is caused by the ongoing evaporation over time of the singularities as they continue to seek a thermodynamically stable state in their immediate environment as well as emit Hawking black body radiation. This has been witnessed in many cold fusion situations. Since singularities emit charged particles they should aid in sustaining the birth, evolution and evaporation of more singularities in the vicinity. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions- the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus. It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream A *charged black hole* is a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that possesses electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only threehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem) quantities, its - mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass *M* (called a Schwarzschild black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_black_hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), - angular momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum *J* (called a Kerr black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_black_hole if it has no charge), and - electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge *Q* (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_black_hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_black_hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_field_equation for the gravitational field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reissner andGunnar Nordström http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Nordstr%C3%B6m, not long after Karl Schwarzschildhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
No, I am not making it up: A *charged black hole* is a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that possesses electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only threehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem) quantities, its - mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass *M* (called a Schwarzschild black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_black_hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), - angular momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum *J* (called a Kerr black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_black_hole if it has no charge), and - electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge *Q* (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_black_hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_black_hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_field_equation for the gravitational field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reissner andGunnar Nordström http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Nordstr%C3%B6m, not long after Karl Schwarzschildhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
The mass sets the radius On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: No, I am not making it up: A *charged black hole* is a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole that possesses electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only threehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem) quantities, its - mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass *M* (called a Schwarzschild black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_black_hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), - angular momentum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum *J* (called a Kerr black hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_black_hole if it has no charge), and - electric charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge *Q* (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_black_hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-Newman_black_hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner-Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_field_equation for the gravitational field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reissner andGunnar Nordström http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Nordstr%C3%B6m, not long after Karl Schwarzschildhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metrichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
At 02:46 AM 8/15/2012, you wrote: After watching -with some interruptions due to local conditions- the Theory Panel at ICCF-17, my first reaction was to go to the Merriam Webster dictionary and to search for the best antinomy of Consensus. It is Dissensus. Perhaps reading the text will be more encouraging. Peter It's commonly assumed that a set of decent people will almost automatically find consensus. That's a myth. It takes skill to generate consensus that isn't just a suppression of dissent. The process starts with exactly what has been suggested elsewhere: understanding each other. That does not mean agreeing. We can know that we understand someone if we can explain their ideas such that they will say, Yes, that's what we think. And if we try to do this and fail, it's a sign we have some work to do. (Rarely someone may be holding a position of I strongly disagree that is so strong they will make up objections to such a restatement, just to make the other person wrong, but it's actually uncommon, and socially disapproved. With a little patience, these barriers can be overcome.) (It often takes facilitation by a neutral party, or at least one whose goal is consensus, who will attempt to make everyone right, to find consensus with untrained people. Much of our social training in modern society leads us to emphasize and pursue difference, instead of building agreement. Perhaps we can start a discussion by agreeing on *anything*.)
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
At 05:02 AM 8/15/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I was hoping they would embrace my theory and observations but I guess it is a little too early for that. Really, CE? Were you actually that naive? Here is the situation. PdD cold fusion was discovered -- or rediscovered -- over twenty years ago. There is still a lot that is unknown about the reaction conditions and details. The problem has engaged many highly knowledgeable people, including theoretical physicists, specialists in quantum mechanics, and Nobel Prize winners. Nobody has yet come up with a theory, to date, that is satisfying, that successfully functions to predict experimental outcomes, particularly when we look for quantitative predictions of any accuracy. Sometimes theory has predicted a general outcome. For example, Miles was aware of Preparata's theory, that predicted helium as the primary ash, when he did his work to demonstrate the heat/helium correlation. But since helium was already on the table as a normal product of fusion (albeit at a different branching ratio), this can't be seen as much of a confirmation of Preparata's theory. And I'm not even familiar with Preparata's actual theory, it's not given much shrift today. Most of the early theories looked to the lattice as the reaction site, it was only known later that the FPHE is a surface effect. If everyone could get on the same page this fledgling industry can generate some serious revenue and transform the World! Cart before the horse, CE. We need more science, first. We need to know more experimental results. You seem to think that the obstacle is a lack of explanatory theory. No, it's been pointed out by many that we have too many theories, and not enough testing. Many of the existing theories have been inadequately developed to be used to make specific predictions that can discriminate between theories. Really, many of these theories are only conjectures, that *possibly* this or that phenomenon is involved. I'm not seeing anything different about your gremlin (singularity) theory. You simply assert possibility, and you are asserting it about a phenomenon where we don't have experimental evidence that the phenomenon even exists, and what consequences it would have. It's quite convenient for the formation of new theories. Since nobody really knows how small singularities would behave, just make up whatever behavior you can imagine might be so. You can then explain all kinds of anomalies. However, producing real value, in terms of increasing our predictive capacity, the goal of theory development in science, is quite another matter, more difficult. My theory explains the following observations: Ed Storms, well respected in the field for years predicts based upon observations the anomalous effect occurs in the cracks and voids of the lattice. Collapsed matter from hydrogen ion collapse would certainly occur in these locations due to concentrated energy charges, hoop effect and collisions. Prof. Celani has witnessed the same effect. CE, this is totally made up. It's not stated why singularities would only occur in cracks and voids. No clue is given for the actual size of the defects. (A similar criticism can be made about Storm's theory, though he does propose some limits. The crack cannot be so large as to allow D2 formation, and obviously it must be larger than the lattice spacing.) Once collapsed matter singularities are formed they instantaneously seek thermodynamically stable states with their surroundings. Prof. Celani witnessed that once his metal lattice had been loaded with hydrogen and had previously shown anomalous heat generation he could shut the system down, transport it and it would immediately show further anomalous heat upon excitation without additional loading. The singularities remained within the lattice during transportation to Austin. Or the cracks and loading remained, or Celani's work is showing a heat artifact, or, or. Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. No explained observation. I'd expect uncharged singularities (and some would be uncharged, it depends on what they have eaten) to be promiscuous, they would be like ULM neutrons. There would be some very observable effects. Temperature Inversion. Dr. Brian Ahern mentioned temperature inversion within samples in the nanometer range. It is well understood that singularites can consume heat from their environment, temporarily cooling their surroundings. Eventually, they will evaporate that energy and entropy back to their surroundings through Hawking radiation. Of course, any kind of chemical storage effect can also explain negative XP. There is no
