Re: [Vo]:Test

[Jonathan Berry]

Real, the car accelerates to a greater speed, and the end point is below
the starting point.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 19:02, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:55, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Jones Beene]

 Frank 

The effect is an interesting phenomenon even if the tendency is to overlook 
rolling resistance and friction. But the problem for the average observer - the 
problem with any metaphor or model for LENR - after all these years, is simple. 
No commercial device.
Not just no commercial device on the marketplace but little that is truly novel 
on the horizon. No toy or demo. At least the video makers with the carts have a 
commercial demo, 

Look at recent conferences. The lesson seems to be that the cost of attendance 
is inversely proportional to real technological advancement


Frank Grimer wrote:  
To me it is a metaphor for catalysis... One half of component A drops down the 
field pressure gradient to the low road and speeds up.The other half dawdles 
along the surface. They both meet up at B and complete their reaction.The 
reaction speed for the low road is therefore much faster than the reaction 
speed for the high road.
Now in this case the field is gravity. In chemical catalysis it is 
Beta-atmosphere.

In my research on clays I showed that specimens compacted from clay particle 
aggregations had a higher strength, ergo higher pF, for smaller aggregations 
than for larger aggregations.
Now one of Mizuno's experiments involved a palladium specimen compacted from 
grains of the metal. The heat generated started running away. Fearing an 
explosion he stopped it.
I read somewhere that he has since had specimens which put in a bath generate 
large amounts of steam, far too much to be the result of chemical reaction.

  
  

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

Thanks Jones.
To me it is a metaphor for catalysis.
One half of component A drops down the field pressure gradient to the low
road and speeds up.
The other half dawdles along the surface.
They both meet up at B and complete their reaction.
The reaction speed for the low road is therefore much faster than the
reaction speed for the high road.
Now in this case the field is gravity.
In chemical catalysis it is Beta-atmosphere.

In my research on clays I showed that specimens compacted from clay
particle aggregations had a higher strength, ergo higher pF, for smaller
aggregations than for larger aggregations.

Now one of Mizuno's experiments involved a palladium specimen compacted
from grains of the metal. The heat generated started running away. Fearing
an explosion he stopped it.

I read somewhere that he has since had specimens which put in a bath
generate large amounts of steam, far too much to be the result of chemical
reaction.

To an unprejudiced observer he has succeeded in finding the holy grail of
Cold Fusion. It seems to me that the only way prejudice will be overcome is
to develop the system commercially. Eventually the skeptics will be forced
to overcome their cognitive dissonance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXuI2oZFwBc



On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
>
> The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem
>
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

That's rightBut to less "with it " people in some forums it seems a
terrible enigma. :-)

The trouble with the maths is that it kills all vestige of the real world
and prevents one seeing the demo in a different light. For example an
analogue to Cold Fusion via catalysis.

Years ago I got into correspondence with a couple of chemists, Gankin,V,Y.
and Gankin Y.V. on the subject of catalysis. They reckoned that people
didn't really understand it and so it was pretty empirical.
They sent me a hardback copy of their latest book and asked me to review
it. As an Engineer I felt I wasn't up to the task and declined.

Now I see the trolly (chemical) as dropping dawn a pressure gravity
gamma-atmosphere,  increasing speed and coming back up to complete the
reaction. The trolley reaction on the surface proceeds more slowly.

The pressure drop can reach pF6 for water.

pF scale
> pF is a log scale for representing soil matric potential. Thus,
> (17.1)   pF =  log10(-100y)
> where y is the matric potential in metres of water. Notice that y is
> always negative under unsaturated conditions.
> For example, if your measured wilting point is -15 bar (-152.96 m water),
> then the pF value is 4.2.


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


Catalysis is essentially speeding up a reaction by dropping down
field pressure gradients. If things remain on the surface then
the reaction is slow - like the yellow car.

I have shown that for water there is a hierarchy of three pressure
fields (see Prof, Chapin's web site).. In a material like Palladium there
must be dozens. These pressure fields can be manipulated by processing. I
have shown that for clays.

The Effect of Pulverization on the Quality of Clay-cement Influence du
> Degré de Pulvérisation de l’Argile sur la Qualité du Sol-ciment by F. J. G
> r im e r , B.Sc . and N . F. Ross, B.Sc., Road Research Laboratory,
> Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, H arm ondsw orth,
> Middlesex, England


Mizuno processed his palladium and got a runaway reaction which he had to
close down . He "tickled the dragon".

To my mind that was clearly cold fusion. No one appreciates it because they
have the wrong model of material behaviour.  The right model involves
humongous cognitive dissonance for acceptance in the chemical field - let
alone by the hot fusioneers.
As frequently happens in science, advance has to come from the outside.




On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 14:34, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
>
> The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem
>
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
>
> Jones
>
>
> Frank Grimer wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg
>
> Two cars.
>
> Green low road car arrives first.
>
> Real or Fake.
>
> Please explain your choice.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Jones Beene]

This similar vid is even a bit more "fake" in terms of expectation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvlmdPLMQM4
The more general phenomenon seems to be called the Brachistochrome Problem 

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Brac
Jones


Frank Grimer wrote:  
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.





  

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

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

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:55, Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>

[Vo]:Test

[Frank Grimer]

Re: [Vo]:Test of heading

[Jones Beene]

 No text

Frank Grimer wrote:  
 
 Test of text  

[Vo]:Test of heading

[Frank Grimer]

Test of text

[Vo]:test

[H LV]

testing

Harry

[Vo]:Test

[Jonathan Berry]

Previous email bounced.

Re: [Vo]:Test mx1

[Terry Blanton]

Watch out where the huskies go
And don't you eat that yellow snow.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:07 AM  wrote:
>
> Testing from mx1
>

[Vo]:Test mx1

[nanook]

Testing from mx1

[Vo]:Test mx2 mounted from mail

[nanook]

Testing mounting smartlist from mail.

[Vo]:Test

[nanook]

Testing

[Vo]:test[OT]

[mixent]

rooly!
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:test

[Jed Rothwell]

Working now. There was a glitch yesterday.

RE: [Vo]:test

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I received Beaty test.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: leaking pen 
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:24:59 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:test

didnt get it. sorry.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:14 PM William Beaty 
mailto:bi...@eskimo.com>> wrote:
test

Re: [Vo]:test

[leaking pen]

didnt get it. sorry.

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:14 PM William Beaty  wrote:

> test
>
>

[Vo]:test

[William Beaty]

test

[Vo]:test

[mixent]

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:test

[mixent]

Posts not appearing on mailing list but do end up in archive.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Test

[Vo]:Test results- bizarre but not SO new

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

It is peak time of the assassination attempts for the Rossi test.
Rossi and the Professors are not reading my Blog so they don't know the 1 =
0 rule.
The results make physics'  best and most faithful scholars angry.
But as I show here- just published it:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/nuclear-physics-turned-on-its-head.html

Rossi is not the first sinner in analytical blasphemy; after Mother
Natureand DGT he is the third to do and say such terrible things.

Peter.

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Teslaalset]

Thanks Jed!
This was indeed an automated spamfilter change causing the problem.
I'll keep an eye on the spambox more often now.
Good you sent me a response to my private mail address too, otherwise it
would have taken me longer to find out.



On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Check your spam file. Gmail has suddenly started sending many of my Vortex
 messages to the spam file. Actually, it does not send them, because I have
 a filter set up to overrule it, but many messages say:

 *This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.*

 (Your message said that too.)


 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
 This is a reflector test

[Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Teslaalset]

Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
This is a reflector test

Re: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Jed Rothwell]

Check your spam file. Gmail has suddenly started sending many of my Vortex
messages to the spam file. Actually, it does not send them, because I have
a filter set up to overrule it, but many messages say:

*This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.*

(Your message said that too.)


Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
 This is a reflector test

Re: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Daniel Rocha]

Wow, same here! :O

2014-04-23 9:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 Check your spam file. Gmail has suddenly started sending many of my Vortex
 messages to the spam file. Actually, it does not send them, because I have a
 filter set up to overrule it, but many messages say:

 This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.

 (Your message said that too.)


 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
 This is a reflector test





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Jones Beene]

This happened to me recently.

The solution that worked for me is to re-subscribe. 

To subscribe, send a *blank* message to:
vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

Put the single word subscribe in the subject line of the header.  NOTHING 
else!

No quotes around subscribe, of course. 


-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 

Wow, same here! :O

2014-04-23 9:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 Check your spam file. Gmail has suddenly started sending many of my Vortex
 messages to the spam file. Actually, it does not send them, because I have a
 filter set up to overrule it, but many messages say:

 This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.

 (Your message said that too.)


 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
 This is a reflector test





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Michele Comitini]

Confirmed here too!  gmail has put vortex-l on the spam-list! I
suppose that a number marking vortex-l messages as NOT SPAM
would help the filter bot change its mind...

2014-04-23 16:16 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net:
 This happened to me recently.

 The solution that worked for me is to re-subscribe.

 To subscribe, send a *blank* message to:
 vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

 Put the single word subscribe in the subject line of the header.  NOTHING 
 else!

 No quotes around subscribe, of course.


 -Original Message-
 From: Daniel Rocha

 Wow, same here! :O

 2014-04-23 9:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
 Check your spam file. Gmail has suddenly started sending many of my Vortex
 messages to the spam file. Actually, it does not send them, because I have a
 filter set up to overrule it, but many messages say:

 This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created.

 (Your message said that too.)


 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Haven't been receiving mails from Vortex for 2 days.
 This is a reflector test





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:[test, please ignore]

[Jed Rothwell]

Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:

Confirmed here too!  gmail has put vortex-l on the spam-list!


It is not just Vortex messages. I think the filter is being triggered by
unusually short messages. Other short messages from various people have
been marked as Spam lately. Google must have tweaked their spam detection
software lately. They went overboard, filtering out too many messages. They
will probably fix the problem soon.

As you say, it will help if people mark messages as not spam.

I have had problems with short messages generated by hacked g-mail accounts
that begin with messages such as: Hi! How are you? People say it works . .
. with a link to a web site that steals your e-mail log on. I have gotten
4 or 5 of these, including one from someone who is long dead. I told his
relatives to close down the account. I suppose the hackers have access to
all of his e-mail.

G-mail correctly identifies these messages. It says:

*Be careful with this message. *It contains content that's typically used
to steal personal information. Learn
morehttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1074268ctx=mail

- Jed

[Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Pinging vortex.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Vortex let this go through. But then it clamped down again.

 

I still can't post a new subject thread. This is weird.

 

Steve

 

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex

 

Pinging vortex.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[H Veeder]

:-)
You never know what people will find useful.

Harry


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 Thanks H Veeder.  These characters do text in Kindle while the font symbol
 does not.  I updated my e book with these symbols and removed words like
 omega.

  Frank





 θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

  Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

  Harry

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[fznidarsic]

The one that is giving me trouble is phi a circle with a line though it.  This 
is what Greek has:



φ  Φ




They are not quite right.  Here it is in symbol 


font.


Φ




Frank

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[John Berry]

The second phi is the same as the 3rd symbol font phi in chrome.


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:20 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

 The one that is giving me trouble is phi a circle with a line though it.
  This is what Greek has:

  φ  Φ



 They are not quite right.  Here it is in symbol


 font.


 Φ



 Frank

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[fznidarsic]

Thanks H Veeder.  These characters do text in Kindle while the font symbol does 
not.  I updated my e book with these symbols and removed words like omega.


Frank







θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ


Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ


Harry

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[Daniel Rocha]

Try this one. It's classical greek, a very interesting text from Socrates.
So, you may test the abilities of google translate :)

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς ῞Ινα τί ἐζωγρήσατε πᾶν θῆλυ;

αὗται γὰρ ἦσαν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Βαλααμ τοῦ ἀποστῆσαι καὶ
ὑπεριδεῖν τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου ἕνεκεν Φογωρ, καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ πληγὴ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ
κυρίου.


καὶ νῦν ἀποκτείνατε πᾶν ἀρσενικὸν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ἀπαρτίᾳ, καὶ πᾶσαν γυναῖκα,
ἥτις ἔγνωκεν κοίτην ἄρσενος, ἀποκτείνατε·


πᾶσαν τὴν ἀπαρτίαν τῶν γυναικῶν, ἥτις οὐκ οἶδεν κοίτην ἄρσενος, ζωγρήσατε
αὐτάς.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[Jim Dickenson]

Still Greek...in Chrome on XP SP3.


On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:36 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into
 this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.

 The characters come from this site

 http://greek.typeit.org/


 θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

 Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[Nigel Dyer]

I get greek: running thunderbird on windows 7

Nigel

On 16/02/2014 06:36, H Veeder wrote:
This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted 
into this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.


The characters come from this site

http://greek.typeit.org/


θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

Harry

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[John Berry]

And on Chrome.


On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 I get greek: running thunderbird on windows 7

 Nigel


 On 16/02/2014 06:36, H Veeder wrote:

 This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into
 this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.

 The characters come from this site

 http://greek.typeit.org/


 θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

 Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[fznidarsic]

This has been an enigma for me.  There are Greek letters in the font symbol and 
just plain Greek letters.  I could never quite figure out what the difference 
is.  Kindle does not text symbol characters.  That's been a problem.  I will 
try these.


Frank

Re: [Vo]:test for greek letters

[Alain Sepeda]

perfect greek. now I wait for news in greek ;-)

any one for news in chinese (old news)

近日，国家低碳能源规划研究院院长
、高灵能源投资股份有限公司总裁戴思嘉在东钓鱼台‘星湖园温泉庄园’会见了美国切诺基基金联合主席托马斯·达顿，双方就美国方面的镍发电能源技术问题，进行了系统的交流磋商，就共同合作推进这一革命性的能源技术达成了一致认识。国家发改委和国务院国资委以及国家能源局的有关领导一同参加了会见。



在全球能源紧缺的背景下，新型能源的发展正方兴继涌。而处于镍反应终试阶段的报告显示，低温镍反应发电技术是当前成本最低且原材料资源较为丰富的发电技术。试验同时显示，镍能发电除了在经济成本方面有着非常好的前景，在环境保护领域也有着得天独厚的巨大优势。在镍反应过程中，不会有任何温室气体及其他污染物排放，不会产生放射性材料，亦无需煤炭或石油等化石能源。


(if someone can translate better than google ;-)


2014-02-16 7:36 GMT+01:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com:

 This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into
 this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.

 The characters come from this site

 http://greek.typeit.org/


 θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

 Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

 Harry

[Vo]:test for greek letters

[H Veeder]

This is a test to see if the greek letters I have copied and pasted into
this message are preserved as they pass through the mail programs.

The characters come from this site

http://greek.typeit.org/


θ ω ε ρ τ ψ υ ι ο π α σ δ φ γ η ς κ λ ζ χ ξ ω β ν μ

Θ Ω Ε Ρ Τ Ψ  Υ Ι Ο Π Α Σ Δ Φ Γ Η ς Κ Λ Ζ Χ Ξ Ω Β Ν Μ

Harry

[Vo]:Test Message

[Mason Ainsworth]

First email to this list.

Please respond if you don't get this.

Re: [Vo]:Test Message

[Jed Rothwell]

Mason Ainsworth lenr_belie...@hotmail.com wrote:


 Please respond if you don't get this.[image: Emoji]


How can you respond if you do not get something?! Raise your hand if you
absent from class.

Perhaps you refer to the emoji (絵文字). That did not come through. This is a
primitive mailing list. ASCII only. We do not acknowledge the 21st Century.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Test Message

[Mason Ainsworth]

You passed the somewhat off-beat test. And, arguably all others did as well 
when they did not respond. (They just acted at a level not exemplified by 
Koans.)

 . . . this primitive mailing list may not acknowledge the 21st century. But it 
still allows us to use a transformational technology generally recognized as 
being invented about 3200 BCE concerning a technology hopefully reaching the 
stage of practical implementation 'relatively' soon.

It will work for me.

Mason

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:29:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test Message
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Mason Ainsworth lenr_belie...@hotmail.com wrote:
 
Please respond if you don't get this. 

How can you respond if you do not get something?! Raise your hand if you 
absent from class.
Perhaps you refer to the emoji (絵文字). That did not come through. This is a 
primitive mailing list. ASCII only. We do not acknowledge the 21st Century.

- Jed
  

[Vo]:test message

[H Veeder]

this is a test

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Roarty, Francis X]

I think the rate of new demos and infrastructure will soon uncover the smoking 
gun, The cork is off the bottle and the genie is already making its presence 
known in more and more labs.. give it a few more months and a couple more 
competitors to announce their claims.. it is the nature of competition now that 
is forcing each new demonstration to reveal more than the previous. Governments 
are equally on the spot trying to dissuade 3rd world nations and even our own 
populace from realizing the potential while having already accumulated the 
technology in secret... should be interesting when corporations harboring top 
secret IP see the competition trying to patent their existing but secret 
technology Pressure is building and I note so is the stock market. .. LMT 
up 39%/12 mos , BA 48%/12 mos ..something is going on! Those kinds of gains 
don't normally persist over a 12 month period.. bull market or no I don't think 
these gains are going to retract and am keeping my money in company stock 
Fingers crossed that these tech corps are planning to exploit their secret IP 
as LENR makes public more and more of what many of us suspect is presently 
hidden under black budget projects.
Fran

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 5:41 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

it seems National instruments asked such doublinded test in 2012, according to 
the conference of Concezz in Rome (and Brussels)...

about industrial claims, there is similar concern, not of doubleblind, but 
because of suspected fraud by testers.
One big fear of industrialist is when the tester organization is fair like 
MIT/Harwell/caltech and sabotage the test in public.
It is a real problem, since simple honest and open scientist are typically 
suspected of beinf friendly with LENR, like Essen have been with Elforsk test.
It is like the peer-review process, which is accused of being corrupted if 
LMENR paper are commonly accepted in a journal.

Then one idea could be to hire some Mary Yugo, Shanahan, , Taubes, to make the 
test.
But like it happen at MIT you can expect some tricks and frauds, and at least 
like in Caltech or harwell, some deliberate incompetence and bad will...

A solution would be to call profession which is less committed against LENR, 
like engineers, electrochemist, but they will be probably treated as a lower 
species not able to measure heat and electricity (this is why they send Essen 
as physicist, and not an engineering school Junior Enterprise. probably the 
electric measures would have been better)...

And even, calling engineers from a company may raise conflicts of interest, and 
suspicion of conflict of interest.
There is a total lack of honest about that, and I can safely suspect that only 
a very negatively biased team may be accepted as good by skeptics, raising 
huge risk of bias, sabotage and fraud.

So we have to find a protocol based on absolute lack of confidence on any side.
It look like a trial, with two attorneys facing a Jury, and public to watch all 
and make revolution if all is manipulated.

My naive idea, inspired by some cryptographic protocol in uncertain environment 
(electronic voting in corrupted environment), is to have two team in the same 
test measuring the same parameters...

I propose for example:

The company measure input power, input voltage, current, waveform, input/output 
fluid temperature, pressure, flow...

the opposing testing team measure the same parameter in cascade (before of 
after).

a third team, the jury observe the discrepancies between the measurement.
If there are difference, there is investigation on the source of the problem, 
helped by the two team.

all is in publicly broadcasted and evidence made public, as soon as a party 
refuse the result.

This eliminate fraud by any camp, even by the jury.
Just have to hope the public is not delusioned (oopt, it is... so it is 
probably hopeless)


2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.commailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com
Hi all, I wanted to ask you how to best do a test proving LENR.
After following this for a short time I would probably try something like
this,

I would use two teams
1. The testers, people well versed in LENR and know how to make the
classic FP experiment work.

2. The skeptics, a scientific team which task is to observe the testers so that
they follow the rules and performs the tests without any dirty trick.

3. To this we need one or two people, the test managers, to administrate the 
test.

The main rule are that no one is allowed to test the water for knowing if it is 
heavy or not.
(appart for the FP effect)

Before the testers are asked to prepare say N samples, so that we are pretty 
sure to see the F  P effect will appear at least n times under the assumption 
that P(water is heavy) = 1/2

The administrators will randomize the type of water used in the test

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 it seems National instruments asked such doublinded test in 2012,
 according to the conference of Concezz in Rome (and Brussels)...


Do you have any better links, I find this test interesting a.t.m.

Of cause when the risk of fraud and ugly gaming is present, a correct test
is more delicate. The nice thing with a
old time LENR test is that the researchers can be assumed to not perform a
fraud. It's possible to skip the suggested
skeptic group and just make sure the testers are honest about not peeking
the kind of water. Actually believing in LENR+ is much easier if LENR is
proven interesting. So it would certainly help attracting capital and humans
for LENR+

Regards
Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Tell me if I'm spaming ...




On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
 stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:


 But I would like to keep the discussion to the original FP experiment.


 Ah, yes.  Sounds good.  It seems you are pretty familiar with the details,
 then.



Not enough to avoid stupid mistakes.


 There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that
 the effect seen is much stronger
 (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used.


 This is true, to a certain extent, but there have been questions about
 light water since the time of Pons and Fleischmann.  Fleischmann himself
 doubted that light water was a suitable control.  If even some activity is
 seen in a light water electrolysis cell, this would make it harder to see a
 clear difference between the light water cell and a heavy water cell,
 although the difference may pronounced in some cases.  The Pd/D and Pd/H
 experiments often showed an effect in heavy water and none discernible in
 light water.


It would be nice to get some statistics out of that, any links?


 The FP effect itself for a skeptic
 does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic
 effect would be quite a strong indication
 that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong?


 Note that there are many experiments over the years that have shown a
 potential isotope effect in palladium.  I wonder whether another experiment
 along these lines will persuade anyone not already willing to be persuaded.


People have seen the FP effects more then 100 times although perhaps not
with overall excess energy and clear nuclear evidence. It must appear.
Although it is not reproducible, one can apply statistical methods and do
perfectly good science. Doing a proper statistical test is a really simple
way to deduce very hard proof that cannot be dismissed as wrong
measurement, wrong method or anything else, in a blind test which you find
asy that of 15 samples 1 was with normal water and the others with heavy
water you would have something publishable. Just describing the
experimental setup and say that you got these values blindfolded is strong
case no matter what you did when taken the measurements assuming no fraud
and following the presented procedure. I think that the main problem that
we have not done such a thing is that
  1) Low control about the production of samples
  2) Each functioning sample is of gold value, would you throw it away in a
test?

Regards
Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Alain Sepeda]

I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given
the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.

Absolute measurement of heat, not even with blank, should be the only and
best solution.

no hysterical skeptic will assume the blank is sincere, ...

even the absolute heat measurement, are currently put in doubt.

some even reject a whole test having proven big CIOP, for minors doubt of
few dozen of %, and accuse the testers to have minimized the heat...

it is psychiatry, not science.

the doubt must be addressed, but no more no less than about apollo and 9/11
conspiracies.



2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com


 Hi Eric,

 I'm not up to speed with your emails. The LENR+ type of activities is
 still something that if proper tests are
 done and affirmative, will be much more interesting, this is clear. But I
 would like to keep the discussion to the
 original FP experiment.


 I think this would be an interesting test to whether there is a possible
 isotope effect. But there's evidence that LENR is seen in light water/light
 hydrogen systems as well.  So if the test concerns the *existence* of LENR,
 rather than a parameter that affects it, I think another control should be
 sought out.


 To decide here one need to have a clue about,

 P(FP-effect | water)  and P(FP-effect | heavy water)

 There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that
 the effect seen is much stronger
 (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used. If the frequencies
 are the same, I would guess that
 we could measure the strength to a number and use that in stead in a test.
 The FP effect itself for a skeptic
 does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic
 effect would be quite a strong indication
 that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong? Else wouldn't it be so
 interesting that people would take notice
 of this field?

 Cheers!

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given
 the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.


I agree, but you do need a good calibration before and after the test. I
suppose that amounts to the same thing as comparative calorimetry.

It is best to apply the most conventional method available. Contrary to
Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require the most ordinary proof you can
manage.

Never use an unusual method when a standard, proven, off-the-shelf
instrument is available. That is why the Levi test with the IR camera was
so good, and why Ericsson and Pomp's suggestion that they use a
do-it-yourself IR camera is so ridiculous. (I think the suggestion was they
should use the raw output from a camera directly rather than going through
the manufacturer's firmware and software.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given
 the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.

 Absolute measurement of heat, not even with blank, should be the only and
 best solution.

 no hysterical skeptic will assume the blank is sincere, ...


I only care for the skeptic, hysterical skeptics are just junk and pushes
sane scientist towards believing. Of cause critical minded persons would
like to redo the test, just that if you present the needed method, then
they will reproduce the result and believe in it. The trick is to get
skeptics going to do the right kind of test. Again you need to have control
of the dynamics of the production and you will need to have good statistics
for them to do a correct test.


 even the absolute heat measurement, are currently put in doubt.


well you need to optimize the process, which probably will take quite some
effort e.g. funding so that the higher yields
will be much more reproducable no? Until that happens one need to take the
advantage of what we can produce with not too much effort e.g. also use the
cases where the heat generated is less then total input. (Note, If I have
good statistics about the result we have had to this point I could be much
more precise, without it I can be off target.) for which one can raise
funding etc.



 the doubt must be addressed, but no more no less than about apollo and
 9/11 conspiracies.


I totally agree, conspiracies is all the rage these days. But it flourishes
on both side of the fence.

Regards
Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given
 the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.


 I agree, but you do need a good calibration before and after the test. I
 suppose that amounts to the same thing as comparative calorimetry.

 It is best to apply the most conventional method available. Contrary to
 Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require the most ordinary proof you can
 manage.


Or, KISS, something which should be a mantra.


 Never use an unusual method when a standard, proven, off-the-shelf
 instrument is available. That is why the Levi test with the IR camera was
 so good, and why Ericsson and Pomp's suggestion that they use a
 do-it-yourself IR camera is so ridiculous. (I think the suggestion was they
 should use the raw output from a camera directly rather than going through
 the manufacturer's firmware and software.)


My take on this is that 'unusual method' depends a bit on the standard
practices in a field of science. If for example it is easy to perform a
test with good enough energy surplus, then we only need to supply the
numbers like, take every 10th specimen in series of consecutive samples in
the production series, take in total 45 of them, perform these methods on
them to decide which are potent and perform classic FP or any variant of
your taste and you will see the surplus is beyond chemical in at least one
of the potent samples. That I agree can be perfectly enough. On the other
hand If you ask another field of science where reproducing results are
common problems, they would perhaps employ other tactics. Perhaps, and only
perhaps, one can crossbreed LENR and these other fields.

/Stefan

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Jed Rothwell]

Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:


 My take on this is that 'unusual method' depends a bit on the standard
 practices in a field of science. If for example it is easy to perform a
 test with good enough energy surplus, then we only need to supply the
 numbers like, take every 10th specimen in series of consecutive samples in
 the production series . . .


It has been difficult to produce heat. It has not been so difficult to
measure it, in many cases. The excess heat has often been greater than 0.5
W, which is easy to measure using proper instruments,even when input
electrolysis power exceeds that by a large margin.

Quoting my ICCF18 presentation:

John Bockris once said to me: I am not an expert in calorimetry, so I
scouted out the *best expert* in Texas and asked him visit our lab. He
came, looked at the apparatus and the data, and then he laughed and said:
‘You don't need *me*; *anyone can measure that much heat*!'

(Bockris spoke in underlines and exclamation points. He boomed.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

Tell me if I'm spaming ...


Not in the slightest.  You seem to know something about statistics.  I hope
you will be very critical and complain about any mistaken reasoning you
see.  There are many electrical engineers, software developers and artists
here, but not very many people with a clear command of advanced statistical
methods.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Alain Sepeda]

yes, and seeing the story of LENR compared to other extraordinary claims, I
think that the problem of LENr is that it requires much intelligence,
competence, trust in instruments, in computation, in good protocol, that it
is too easy for a lazy mind (like me sometime) to quickly conclude that it
is artifact, and stop looking...

so the protocol should be very very simple, and free of any possibility to
claim a trick, an artifact... something a layman can understand, and which
a doctor cannot critic without looking ridiculous.

about blank, I agree I've exaggerated, it is useful to increase trust, and
by the way it is useful for the testers to understand the performance of
their apparatus...

One idea that could be pleasant is the turbine-generator feed-back, but
seeing the many critics, rational, extreme, or absurds, I'm afraid that any
complex system will call for denial...

 on the opposite a mass calorimetry with ice, or warming a big bath could
do the job.

I've heard of a simple protocol compatible with steam in the reactor, and
only warm water measured... just split and mixing...

anyway hearing some comments, it seems that even the position of
thermocouple with DGT test was criticized. Despite the blank run at COP0.5
(this way the blank was useful to shut down claims of fraud).

in absolute calorimetry, I don't understand how bad thermocouple
positioning can have a 300% impact... same for bubble back in flowmeter...
Sometime it seems it is pure folly. But yes there can be mistakes...



2013/8/5 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think that comparative calorimetry is not accpetable, not needed, given
 the hysteric level of skepticism and the high COP.


 I agree, but you do need a good calibration before and after the test. I
 suppose that amounts to the same thing as comparative calorimetry.

 It is best to apply the most conventional method available. Contrary to
 Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require the most ordinary proof you can
 manage.

 Never use an unusual method when a standard, proven, off-the-shelf
 instrument is available. That is why the Levi test with the IR camera was
 so good, and why Ericsson and Pomp's suggestion that they use a
 do-it-yourself IR camera is so ridiculous. (I think the suggestion was they
 should use the raw output from a camera directly rather than going through
 the manufacturer's firmware and software.)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

It would be nice to get some statistics out of that, any links?


Although this is a reasonable request, there are two difficulties in
addressing it.  The first is that the experiments span a range of
qualities, from very good to very poor, and they are somewhat hard to
compare with one another due to the large parameter space.  A second
difficulty is that there are many relevant papers.

As a start, you should take a look at Ed Storms's book (full disclosure --
he is an occasional participant on this list).  I recommend it very highly.
 It has a number of tables that distill many years of experiments, and the
different sections cover different types of experiment -- old school PF
electrolysis experiments, gas loading experiments, ion beam experiments,
etc.  What you are looking for is perhaps summarized in one or two sections
of this book.  I am not persuaded of all of his conclusions, but his
conclusions are all well-researched.

For a more in-depth investigation, the early papers (say 1989-1991) are
very interesting.  I am reading through them now.  These include mainstream
journal articles and early conference proceedings, some of the latter of
which can be obtained from Amazon.  In addition, LENR-CANR.org has many
early papers as well as a search interface that will allow you to search
for specific terms (e.g., electrolysis).  (This is Jed Rothwell's site.)
 You can also find interesting papers on the New Energy Times site.

The early papers are not the only ones that are relevant for what you're
looking at, of course.  But I get the vague sense that the field is
starting to move on from deuterium electrolysis, although occasionally one
will see new papers.  In general, early papers were published in mainstream
journals and conference proceedings, up until about 1992.  After that,
there is the sporadic paper in Naturwissenschaften and Fusion Technology,
and everything else is largely in conference proceedings or in JCMNS or is
self-published.

One of the challenges with deuterium electrolysis is that it is very
finicky.  For some reason many trials end up being duds, and only
occasionally is a reaction seen, which, in some cases, is dramatic, and
which, in many cases, is barely above the threshold of measurement error.
 These same challenges will no doubt recur in a double-blind experiment
along the lines of what you're thinking about.  I get the impression that
the NiH gas loading system is easier to get going reliably once you know
the secret recipe, but I could be inferring too much from the available
information to justify this conclusion.  Technically speaking, the
researchers may not be 100 percent convinced that NiH is legit, but I get
the sense that people's impressions are starting to change.

To summarize, check out Ed Storms's book or LENR-CANR.org as a starting
point.

Eric

[Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Hi all, I wanted to ask you how to best do a test proving LENR.
After following this for a short time I would probably try something like
this,

I would use two teams
1. The testers, people well versed in LENR and know how to make the
classic FP experiment work.

2. The skeptics, a scientific team which task is to observe the testers so
that
they follow the rules and performs the tests without any dirty trick.

3. To this we need one or two people, the test managers, to administrate
the test.

The main rule are that no one is allowed to test the water for knowing if
it is heavy or not.
(appart for the FP effect)

Before the testers are asked to prepare say N samples, so that we are
pretty sure to see the F  P effect will appear at least n times under the
assumption that P(water is heavy) = 1/2

The administrators will randomize the type of water used in the test and
hide it for the teams. After all the tests have been performed, one should
be able to decide among,

H0: the seen effect if it's seen, does not depend on the type of water
H1: It does depend on the type of water.

Of cause current experience and the help of people well versed in setting
up statistical tests should be consulted.

Shouldn't this kind of test be possible and wouldn't a rejecting of H0 be a
amazing fact for any sceptic? It should show
1. The FP effect is real and
2. The nucleus have to be involved in some way, hence LENR.

WDYT?

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:

H0: the seen effect if it's seen, does not depend on the type of water
  H1: It does depend on the type of water.


I think this would be an interesting test to whether there is a possible
isotope effect. But there's evidence that LENR is seen in light water/light
hydrogen systems as well.  So if the test concerns the *existence* of LENR,
rather than a parameter that affects it, I think another control should be
sought out.  Whatever that other control is (input power turned off, a
different substrate or cathode, or some other property), could be varied in
the manner you suggest to rule out a null hypothesis.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

So if the test concerns the *existence* of LENR, rather than a parameter
 that affects it, I think another control should be sought out.  Whatever
 that other control is (input power turned off, a different substrate or
 cathode, or some other property), could be varied in the manner you suggest
 to rule out a null hypothesis.


I should clarify -- there are experiments that seek to establish the
existence of LENR (something the mainstream physicists still have yet to
convince themselves of).  There are experiments to look for the mechanism
behind LENR, on the assumption that it exists.  And there are possible
experiments to assess whether a company such as Leonardo Corp. or Defkalion
have a working device that produces more energy that goes into it, possibly
due to LENR.  Perhaps you have the last kind of experiment in mind.  In
that case, a control that seems promising would be to use argon in place of
hydrogen, without making assumptions about whether LENR is caused by light
hydrogen, deuterium, or a combination of both.

(I misspoke when I said that turning off the input power would be a
suitable control.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Hi Eric,

I'm not up to speed with your emails. The LENR+ type of activities is still
something that if proper tests are
done and affirmative, will be much more interesting, this is clear. But I
would like to keep the discussion to the
original FP experiment.


 I think this would be an interesting test to whether there is a possible
 isotope effect. But there's evidence that LENR is seen in light water/light
 hydrogen systems as well.  So if the test concerns the *existence* of LENR,
 rather than a parameter that affects it, I think another control should be
 sought out.


To decide here one need to have a clue about,

P(FP-effect | water)  and P(FP-effect | heavy water)

There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that
the effect seen is much stronger
(more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used. If the frequencies
are the same, I would guess that
we could measure the strength to a number and use that in stead in a test.
The FP effect itself for a skeptic
does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic effect
would be quite a strong indication
that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong? Else wouldn't it be so
interesting that people would take notice
of this field?

Cheers!

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Alain Sepeda]

it seems National instruments asked such doublinded test in 2012, according
to the conference of Concezz in Rome (and Brussels)...

about industrial claims, there is similar concern, not of doubleblind, but
because of suspected fraud by testers.
One big fear of industrialist is when the tester organization is fair like
MIT/Harwell/caltech and sabotage the test in public.
It is a real problem, since simple honest and open scientist are typically
suspected of beinf friendly with LENR, like Essen have been with Elforsk
test.
It is like the peer-review process, which is accused of being corrupted if
LMENR paper are commonly accepted in a journal.

Then one idea could be to hire some Mary Yugo, Shanahan, , Taubes, to make
the test.
But like it happen at MIT you can expect some tricks and frauds, and at
least like in Caltech or harwell, some deliberate incompetence and bad
will...

A solution would be to call profession which is less committed against
LENR, like engineers, electrochemist, but they will be probably treated as
a lower species not able to measure heat and electricity (this is why they
send Essen as physicist, and not an engineering school Junior Enterprise.
probably the electric measures would have been better)...

And even, calling engineers from a company may raise conflicts of interest,
and suspicion of conflict of interest.
There is a total lack of honest about that, and I can safely suspect that
only a very negatively biased team may be accepted as good by skeptics,
raising huge risk of bias, sabotage and fraud.

So we have to find a protocol based on absolute lack of confidence on any
side.
It look like a trial, with two attorneys facing a Jury, and public to watch
all and make revolution if all is manipulated.

My naive idea, inspired by some cryptographic protocol in uncertain
environment (electronic voting in corrupted environment), is to have two
team in the same test measuring the same parameters...

I propose for example:

The company measure input power, input voltage, current, waveform,
input/output fluid temperature, pressure, flow...

the opposing testing team measure the same parameter in cascade (before of
after).

a third team, the jury observe the discrepancies between the measurement.
If there are difference, there is investigation on the source of the
problem, helped by the two team.

all is in publicly broadcasted and evidence made public, as soon as a party
refuse the result.

This eliminate fraud by any camp, even by the jury.
Just have to hope the public is not delusioned (oopt, it is... so it is
probably hopeless)



2013/8/4 Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com

 Hi all, I wanted to ask you how to best do a test proving LENR.
 After following this for a short time I would probably try something like
 this,

 I would use two teams
 1. The testers, people well versed in LENR and know how to make the
 classic FP experiment work.

 2. The skeptics, a scientific team which task is to observe the testers so
 that
 they follow the rules and performs the tests without any dirty trick.

 3. To this we need one or two people, the test managers, to administrate
 the test.

 The main rule are that no one is allowed to test the water for knowing if
 it is heavy or not.
 (appart for the FP effect)

 Before the testers are asked to prepare say N samples, so that we are
 pretty sure to see the F  P effect will appear at least n times under the
 assumption that P(water is heavy) = 1/2

 The administrators will randomize the type of water used in the test and
 hide it for the teams. After all the tests have been performed, one should
 be able to decide among,

 H0: the seen effect if it's seen, does not depend on the type of water
 H1: It does depend on the type of water.

 Of cause current experience and the help of people well versed in setting
 up statistical tests should be consulted.

 Shouldn't this kind of test be possible and wouldn't a rejecting of H0 be
 a amazing fact for any sceptic? It should show
 1. The FP effect is real and
 2. The nucleus have to be involved in some way, hence LENR.

 WDYT?

Re: [Vo]:Test to show LENR?

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe 
stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote:


 But I would like to keep the discussion to the original FP experiment.


Ah, yes.  Sounds good.  It seems you are pretty familiar with the details,
then.


 There is a reason why heavy water is typically used so I would assume that
 the effect seen is much stronger
 (more frequent, higher energy) then when water is used.


This is true, to a certain extent, but there have been questions about
light water since the time of Pons and Fleischmann.  Fleischmann himself
doubted that light water was a suitable control.  If even some activity is
seen in a light water electrolysis cell, this would make it harder to see a
clear difference between the light water cell and a heavy water cell,
although the difference may pronounced in some cases.  The Pd/D and Pd/H
experiments often showed an effect in heavy water and none discernible in
light water.


 The FP effect itself for a skeptic
 does not necessary equate to a nuclear effect. It having an isotopic
 effect would be quite a strong indication
 that there is a nuclear effect or am I wrong?


I see where you're coming from.  I'm a hobbyist, so I can only speculate on
what would satisfy an open-minded skeptical scientist.  But if observers
are willing to suspend judgment on what is going on, a clear isotope effect
in a Pd+LiOD system versus a Pd+LiOH system might be interesting to them.
 When people mention the PF effect, they often have excess heat in mind as
the observable, and this seems like a good one.  But if we're looking for
ironclad proof of a nuclear effect, per se, tritium, charged particles or
characteristic x-rays might be interesting to look at.

Else wouldn't it be so interesting that people would take notice
 of this field?


Note that there are many experiments over the years that have shown a
potential isotope effect in palladium.  I wonder whether another experiment
along these lines will persuade anyone not already willing to be persuaded.

Eric

[Vo]:Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Not working . . .

[Vo]:test

[Peter Gluck]

Vortex, are you down?

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:test

[Axil Axil]

I see you


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Vortex, are you down?

 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Vortex bouncing messages from me and Ed Storms. eskimo.com has it in for us!

- Jed

[Vo]:Test

[Jed Rothwell]

Messages not posting.

Re: [Vo]:test

[Alan Fletcher]

The list got too skeptical ?   Demanded two-factor authorization?



=8-(

Re: [Vo]:test

[Jed Rothwell]

Test response. Message received. Other messages not posting.

[Vo]:test

[Robert Dinse]

This is a test of the emergency broadband system.  If this had been an
actual emergency your computer would be a smoking heap.  No need to reply
to this test.

Re: [Vo]:test

[Terry Blanton]

Thanks, Bill!

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:test

[Alexander Hollins]

a c c d true false false true antidisetablishmentarianism , because
sailing, travel, and monster stories were popular, thus Moby Dick was a
preemptive commercial success.


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:Test

[Robert Dinse]

Testing from gmail.

Re: [Vo]:test

[Peter Gluck]

OK Bill


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:04 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:test

[John Berry]

I'll pong even though you didn't ping.
Maybe I should just take a shower ;)

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:test

[William Beaty]

(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:Test thread heading

[Jed Rothwell]

Test. Please ignore.

Re: [Vo]:Test thread heading

[Jed Rothwell]

Test response. Let's see if James Bowery is right and this is something at
my end.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Test thread heading

[Jed Rothwell]

Nope. No recursive explosion of Re: Re: Re:

It must be something like the dash in the title. The Eskimo.com mail system
is bonkers.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Test thread heading

[James Bowery]

The reason I said it is at your end is that when I responded to the same
threads, no explosion happened whereas when you responded, it did happen.
 At least that's the way it appeared at this end.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Nope. No recursive explosion of Re: Re: Re:

 It must be something like the dash in the title. The Eskimo.com mail
 system is bonkers.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Test message reproducing the – problem

[James Bowery]

This is a test to determine whether the problem with response prefix
explosion was caused by funny windows characters such as –

which appeared in the title of the prior thread.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Test message reproducing the – problem

[James Bowery]

A test response.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a test to determine whether the problem with response prefix
 explosion was caused by funny windows characters such as  –

 which appeared in the title of the prior thread.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Test message reproducing the – problem

[James Bowery]

Yep.

Thank you, world's richest man.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:27 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 A test response.


 On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a test to determine whether the problem with response prefix
 explosion was caused by funny windows characters such as  –

 which appeared in the title of the prior thread.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Test message reproducing the – problem

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Yep.

 Thank you, world's richest man.


Probably not Microsoft's fault. But hey, let't blame 'em! They are guilty
of a lot of things.

- Jed

[Vo]:test, is it alive?

[William Beaty]

eskimo.com ISP is transferring the software to a new machine.  Something 
went wrong?




(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:test, is it alive?

[Peter Gluck]

nothing observed


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:07 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:


 eskimo.com ISP is transferring the software to a new machine.  Something
 went wrong?



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:test, is it alive?

[Terry Blanton]

It has been down for a couple of days.

I monitor the eskimo yahoo group and did not see any notice.  Maybe
they didn't give one?  :-)

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:07 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 eskimo.com ISP is transferring the software to a new machine.  Something
 went wrong?



 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:test

[Peter Gluck]

test

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:test massage

[Terry Blanton]

a little to the right

Re: [Vo]:test massage

[Terry Blanton]

the list was hiccuping earlier

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 a little to the right

Re: [Vo]:test

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

From Terry.

 Post it in docs.google.com

I finally posted my scribblings under the subject thread: Groking
CoAM, Kepler and Rossi as a txt file. Nothing appears to have gotten
terribly garbled.

BTW, I noticed that Google is upgrading docs.google.com to drive.google.com

Under new management.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:test

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 BTW, I noticed that Google is upgrading docs.google.com to 
 drive.google.com

Good movie:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/

Better movie:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1502404/

Hot movie:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071875/

T

[Vo]:test

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Is this getting through?

 

svj

Re: [Vo]:test

[Terry Blanton]

No, try again.

T

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 Is this getting through?



 svj

Re: [Vo]:test

[Terry Blanton]

Eskimo.com is replacing the mail server with new h/w and s/w.  Some
hiccups have been experienced of late; but, patience will be a virtue.

T

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 No, try again.

 T

 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 Is this getting through?



 svj

RE: [Vo]:test

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Drat!

I'm trying to send a post in HTML format because it contains some font
changes to make it easier to read some formulas. I got it down to under 40k
but Vortex-l still doesn't like it.

Oh, well... I'll send it in raw text format.

Screw the fancy fonts!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:test

[Terry Blanton]

Post it in docs.google.com

T

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 Drat!

 I'm trying to send a post in HTML format because it contains some font
 changes to make it easier to read some formulas. I got it down to under 40k
 but Vortex-l still doesn't like it.

 Oh, well... I'll send it in raw text format.

 Screw the fancy fonts!

 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks