Yes Eric, I understand the thought. Deniers should be allowed their opinion
like everyone should. There is a danger though in letting the deniers
push propaganda as scientific fact. It's propaganda by the big energy
corps I fear. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few planted trolls on here
just
On 02/07/2013 02:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote:
Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians,
I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data
point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You
have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I
think that
Chuck Sites,
You need to read the forum RULES again. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!
The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain
stupid.
That is a fact jack. There are 2 scientist that say so against your 5.
Congratulations for proving the point that the
Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually
being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that
should be there but it isn't.
2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
If it does not show up, how could it be measured? [image: :-)]
--
Daniel
This surprises me. See:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/us-solar-projects-will-eclipse-wind-this-year-says-duke
Quote:
The U.S. may install 3 gigawatts to 4 gigawatts of wind turbines this
year, and solar projects will probably exceed that, said Gregory Wolf,
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed?
I assume that is a joke.
- Jed
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I
pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help
catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very
long delayed effect to come
Not really, I believe the sun can trigger both of them
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed?
I assume that is a joke.
- Jed
I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. If you are suggesting that
there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a
false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let
the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome.
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and
input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy,
signal.
2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a
reading of zero excess power is
I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other
out. Is that what you mean?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
test
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. If you are suggesting that
there should be LENR activity and thus a
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the
calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working
David,
I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a
lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be
tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present.
That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the
calculation.
That's what
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source
of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter
in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the
same resistance.
And,
They performed something a bit like this for me earlier. First, the Celani
wire was given several input power steps up to the max to be used followed by
steps of the heating wire. All the average points gathered around these steps
was used to establish a quadratic calibration curve. The R^2
Ed,
I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a
reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or
any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration.
A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way
to
It should be added that a stainless steel wire may not be inert.
Depending on the alloy, the wire can contain substantial nickel content -
and also molybdenum - which is the best Mills' catalyst (in terms of most
exact Rydberg fit).
As to what kind of wire (of moderately high resistance
That is a good idea. It would show whether a particular method
analsysis can reveal or mask a positive signal.
Harry
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
Heat with the inactive wire, then
Dave,
I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the
small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important
because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not
known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty
in the
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
should then show up as 10W excess
But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it?
As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to
compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such
as iron is also inert.
From: Edmund Storms
Dave,
I'm glad
I should add that pure iron itself can be very conductive - but even modest
amounts of carbon make it resistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up.
This is an important point - if anyone has the numbers handy - please share.
From: Jones Beene
But Ed - platinum wire would not be
The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working
very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at
various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the
results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a
reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire,
or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration.
This happens to some extent with most calorimeters.
And of course we might find that magnetic interaction causes unusual behavior.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:15 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I should add that pure ironitself can
And these guys are planning to build devices that can be shipped to companies
and other organizations as proof of LENR to get their attention. This will not
work as long as it is this difficult to achieve performance that is beyond
question. Jed has a valid point here.
The earlier work by
Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these
experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make
such a fundamental mistake.
Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that
virtually everyone with any degree of credibility
James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the best procedures
and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been large as was expected,
then it would not have required the degree of precision that you imply to
achieve their goals.
Let the process continue to its
I'm asking the question in all sincerity and without finger-pointing, let
alone malice toward anyone.
The absence of widely-publicized and accepted best practices for LENR
calorimetry points out a serious need.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
James,
Good question, Jim. The reason is that people jump into what looks
like an easy measurement to quickly see excess energy, which is the
brass ring. They want to win the game without taking the time to
master the skill. I did this 20 years ago as well. Fortunately, the
excess I detected
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that
virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees?
To some extent it is because no single calorimeter type works for every
kind of experiment. You have to look at the
Yes they can. In fact this could be important for LENR, should it be broad
enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such as the magnon.
The definitions are similar: polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from
strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic
Awkshully - there could a small bit of justified finger-pointing - but not
towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. He will get over it, in the end.
After all - he will get the lion's share of the credit, when this is finally
replicated, but if it not replicated, then his exuberance in Texas and
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Awkshully - there could a small bit of justified finger-pointing - but
not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself.
If it turns out to be wrong, he has been sloppy. In Korea, McKubre and
others said they thought his calorimetry was totally inadequate.
To
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/earth-like-planets-are-ri_n_2632324.html
Its time for the journal editors to get of the way and start publishing
articles on gravitomagnetic propulsion and cold fusion.
Frank Z
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are
working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been
taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the
Looks like Y.E. Kim's BEC theory for LENR just got a leg up. Criticisms of his
theory were that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures.
[PDF] Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/YEKim-AIP-PNMBTG.pdf
File Format:
David and Fellow Vortexians. I have used a few Ad-homens to describe a
class of people that have a stubborn contrary and confounding point of view
with respect to anthropogenic global warming. For that I apologize and I
will refrain from the short little quips and Ad-homens. For me, AGW is a
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a
form
of bondage! Does it ever get better?
Dave
Doesn't SM include blindfolds? ;-)
Hence the Double Blind experiment, beloved of biologists. They also get off
on torturing
See:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/150-foot-asteroid-will-buzz-earth-next-week-no-need-to-duck-for-incredibly-close-approach/2013/02/07/29170cf6-715d-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html
I don't know why this is in the Business section. Anyway, it is from the AP
Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS routine
takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not have any
idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or negative. An
earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared
That is scary! Now I know what it feels like to be just out of range of a mad
shooter. I fear that one day he will get lucky and we will have a new problem
to solve. If this one was just discovered last February then how many more are
waiting on the sidelines? Yipes.
Dave
-Original
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
If this one was just discovered last February then how many more are
waiting on the sidelines?
NASA and others are taking the problem seriously. See their Near-Earth
Object Project:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.spaceguarduk.com/
Part of the
If we have the ability to deflect large objects, we would probably
have the ability simply to nuke them with a 20 megaton bomb and
turn them into gravel (presumably). In fact, my vague impression
is that we have that ability now or could have it within a decade.
A 'spaceguard' of orbiting nukes,
I believe that the nuclear option is on the table. I think it would be easier
to divert the asteroids by digging in the warhead under a large mass of
material that can be expelled by the blast. The momentum given to the expelled
mass would be matched by that transferred to the remaining
The current graphs of their live data are looking more interesting to me.
I am viewing from 2/1 to 2/7. Cell 1.0 is approaching 8 watts excess
(according to their calculation method). If the trend keeps going up with
Cell 1.0, we could get to more convincing territory.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at
I have read that it would be difficult to stop rocks with nuclear bombs. It
is not practical to fly the bomb at the thing and detonate it the moment
they are close, with a proximity fuse. Large, heavy objects often survived
above ground nuclear explosions intact.
I think no matter what technique
testing subscribe before I unsubscribe as hellokevin
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:43 PM, vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com wrote:
You have added to the subscriber list of:
vortex-l@eskimo.com
the following mail address:
kevmol...@gmail.com
By default, copies of your own
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
A 'spaceguard' of orbiting nukes, at varying distances from the
earth, at the orbit of the moon and much farther, would give us
the ability to meet the objects at a safe distance from earth.
I think this would be difficult
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors.
I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite
effective at mobilizing public opinion.
Eric
Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which really
reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or was that Dec
21, 2012?
On Feb 7, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Ron Kita wrote:
Vortex-l,
Did the Mayans forsee the Feb 15th asteroid and merely
Wouldn't blowing up an asteroid merely create a lot of smaller pieces raining
down on earth, with only a few deflected into non-collision paths.
Maybe a better solution would be a space tug, which would go out, hook up the
asteroid and begin tugging it out of the collision trajectory.
Another
54 matches
Mail list logo
