I see no evidence of any LENR related conference, presentation, showcase,
unlike last year...
Even Defkalion corrected the enthusiams of a reporter (Jeane Manning I
think) who announced a demo at NIWeek...
It seems NI was afraid that LENR may eclipse NI usual business.
2013/7/15 blaze spinnaker
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
[mg]
That article doesn't make sense to me.
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's
Wait a minute! Did not Widom, Larson, and Krivit not figure this out?
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
That article doesn't make sense
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
That article doesn't make sense to me.
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read
From Mark Gibbs:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
Hi Mark,
I suspect your latest FORBES article will generate plenty of discussion
here. Obviously, you suspect something interesting is happening. something
that warrants further research. I
While AES is a preferable name to either LENR or cold fusion, renaming now
is probably premature ...
...under the circumstances, it seems to me that we are within a year or two
of finding the precise cause for the anomaly - so, why not wait a bit
longer?
From:
Mark, you are correct about many theories being proposed but you are
wrong about there being no theory that explains the effect. I have
described such a theory in print and will give a major talk about the
model at ICCF-18. This model can explain all the observed behavior as
well as how
I asked Defkalion directly and got a non committal reply- neither confirming
or denying.
We do not disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18.
I would say that I will be doing a small demo there and the powers that be
are aware of that. I don't think it is a mater of eclipsing
name/word games do not change the physics.
How long have circuit diagrams used the direction positive current flow even
when we know it is electrons?
Historical terms tend to stick.
Dennis
From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:52:49 -0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject:
Since Mark's suggestion will prompt a flurry of thought, and possibly a few
more suggestions which are influenced by the present agenda of interested
observers, here are a few alternatives from the far-fringe (with a
rationale) - pending future evidence for accuracy. Obviously, there is a
slant,
My response posted at the Forbes site:
With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion
is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as
plasma fusion does.
No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is
a very
On 2013-07-15 16:01, DJ Cravens wrote:
I asked Defkalion directly and got a non committal reply- neither
confirming or denying.
We do not disclose what we will present in NI Week and ICCF-18.
This is unconfirmed news, but it seems there will be a Defkalion GT demo
in Milan, Italy on July
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
published with the new name will immediately figure out that
Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'moab2...@googlemail.com'); wrote:
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200
Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:
That article doesn't make sense to me.
You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
Not gonna happen. People who use technology from its earliest stages tend
to stick to original words for things. To the end of his life Orville
Wright spelled his invention aeroplane. That is more
Mark:
Good article, and I'm pleased to see that you've taken the time to look thru
papers at lenr.org. more than most so called journalists have done. My
gripe is with the attitude of the 'so called' physicists.
It shouldn't matter WTF it is called. it is anomalous, and SCIENCE is about
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:46:46 -0400
Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:
And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited
commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I
figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf
*Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
targets in heavy water *
There is an area a science where orthodox science gradually descends into
pseudoscience as the power that activates the induced nuclear
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much
further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood.
Yes! It is a bit like calling them x-rays where x means unknown.
There are countless words with origins based on
I still label mine- HOPE , hydrogen or proton effect. With the understanding
that hydrogen includes all isotopes of H.
:)
D2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote:
3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible proton fusion
The thing is you need some kind of catchy Acronym.
The above could be abbreviated to Polca Repro fusion; which can again be
abbreviated to PoRe fusion ;-)
And pore fusion could in essence
I think the right of name giving belongs to the researchers
or the company that will work out the very first energy source
based on hydrogen-metal interaction.
Peter
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:53 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote:
I still label mine- HOPE , hydrogen or proton effect.
Nanoplasmonic Induced Transmutation (NIT). The name needs to be generalized
to describe all know anomalous nuclear reactions which are outside the
purview of orthodox nuclear physics. This should cover lightning reactions,
nebular, solar, and the many forms of cavatation.
At this early stage, it
Why not call cold fusion: This is no threat to hot fusion (TINTTHF)
and count on every one being as easily fooled as this discussion
assumes?
Ed
On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote:
3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible
When I discuss my interests with people that do not follow LENR progress I find
that the best way to get them to understand which subject I am referring to is
to use the term Cold Fusion. That always works!
There has been at least one main movie that many typical people has watched
where
Personally I think the phrase Cold Fusion describes itself fairly
well. When it comes to the way fusion was initially obtained, which
is very hot indeed, this alternate, new method of creating fusion is
pretty damned cold, no matter which way you go about it. Maybe we
should call it New
X-Rated Fusion
XXX Fusion
Harry
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much
further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood.
Yes!
X-Rated physics.
Not for prudes.
Harry
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
X-Rated Fusion
XXX Fusion
Harry
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
I don’t see that
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 21:06, H Veeder wrote:
X-Rated Fusion
XXX Fusion
Only to be applied after 10:00 PM ;-)
Kind regards,
Rob
Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote:
Personally I think the phrase Cold Fusion describes itself fairly well.
I think so too.
I get why it upsets the plasma fusion people. I do not understand why it
bothers other people, such as the people who hang out at Wikipedia, or
Steve Krivit. They do
FWIW
A set of 18 videos (large litter) of LENR experiments from Quirino Cuccioli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZb44OqgUT0
attachment: winmail.dat
What is this about? Is there a paper?
And what's with the music? I miss the days when scientists were squares
who listened mainly to classical music instead of dreadful popular music. I
saw the photos of the staff at Nature a few years ago. They are dressed
undergrads circa 1975. I guess they
My response at the Mark Gibbs blog:
A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon”
since, at this point, it is interpreted by physics authorities to be merely
a sociological phenomenon that originated with the two named perpetrators,
and, by those skeptical of the physics
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon”
I think Fleischmann-Pons effect is more in line with the names of similar
discoveries. Some people do call it this.
It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an
Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the
reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon
in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be appropriate as it
named the original perpetrators of this incompetence and delusion that
went on
FPP is good!
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the
reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon
in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata
Effect, and the Stringham Effect. All are cold fusion, but the names
identify different methods and give credit. As for the name, everyone
knows about cold fusion. Changing the name only invites a charge of
trying to
http://22passi.blogspot.fr/2013/07/stasera-defkalion-ospite-di-moebius.html#1373899462684
MYSTERY said ...
@ Thu , 22 In the demo there will be a representative of CICAP, a physicist
from what I understand, journalists from the BBC and will be streaming at
the same time to another streaming
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata
Effect, and the Stringham Effect.
Yes -- FP effect tends to refer to D2O electrolysis with palladium (or
maybe titanium).
In more general contexts,
On 2013-07-16 03:23, blaze spinnaker wrote:
Unconfirmed rumor at this point, but if true: (face palm)
Towards the end (minute 32:50 onwards) of the following podcast (in
Italian) of a radio show about science and technology (Moebius [1],
from Radio24, an all-news radio station owned by the
They don't directly link Defkalion GT to this demo, but the hearsay
information I've read around (22passi like you pointed to and a different
blog where the same author occasionally writes) does and seems reliable.
Which blog is that? I read about this via lenr-forum.com Alain is pretty
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:48:47 PM
http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/preparata
Google-translated comment :
Andrea writes:
July 15th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
In the demo of 22 there will be a representative of CICAP, a physicist from
what
The evidence is overwhelming.
. and as I've been saying for many years, electrons (and likely other
subatomic 'particles') are a dipole-like oscillation of the underlying
vacuum.
Imaging electron pairing in a simple magnetic superconductor
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
- electrons tunneling ‘thru’ the nucleus
That's a weird one. When I first read about that one, it seemed a little
off to me. There's this super dense quark-gluon plasma with all this
energy, and the electron flies
Names are important. They have power, and, they flip like fashion.
But no matter what you'd like to call it, when the technology descends,
you will not decide the name, the company will not decide the name, the
public will.
The users of any technology will generate their own language to
This is information about Bharat radiation was posted by
Dr. M.A. Padmanabha Rao on another list.
Bharat radiation is suppose to be radiation from radioisotopes which appear
to emit UV rays instead of Gamma rays.
Harry
--
You may be interested in the following papers:
Eric,
the reason the ‘tunneling’ electron doesn’t interact is because it is no longer
at a different pressure; it is traversing the nucleus as a ‘flow’. That flow
polarizes the surrounding vacuum, the polarization forming a barrier which
impedes the flow, thus causing a build-up of
49 matches
Mail list logo
