Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with common sense or for non-controversial articles. For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that they have to protect the article from evil POV pushers. They have a mission: Wikipedia must not expound fringe ideas In some cases they do the right thing by deleting really bad sources, but they have simply lost any form of perspective, they overshoot, some willingly, some unwillingly. They turn the article into a dark alley where only they rule. There is no way to evolve an article in such atmosphere. Those who tried all got blocked or banned, as there will always be a reason to ban an editor. polite POV pushing is suffient. Uninvolved editors who really enjoy working on wikipedia stay away from controversial articles. Wikipedia is based on consensus and just as crooks in a dark alley the editors will have reached a consensus to misuse the rules/policies. Example: The indian scientific journal current science was dismissed by one editor as not reliable source, because they had published a paper by Steven Krivit and it was argued that their peer review is not done properly and that the journal is not significant. The atmosphere is already so devoid from common sense that such a argumentation is simply accepted by fellow editors, just to keep a paper from being mentioned in the article. Wikipedia fails with the set of editors that make up the consensus. POVbrigand On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, an expert in Wikipedia, wrote descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are great, then he says they are not followed: If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware that it can be an abusive community, the policies and guidelines are fantastic, and commonly not followed. They are not followed because the users who understood them gave up pushing the boulder up the hill and watching it roll back again. . . . I do not see how a set of rules can be fantastic when they are routinely ignored. A rule is only fantastic when it is enforceable. The rules lead to many problems: Users who persisted in insisting on policy, against the desires of any kind of cabal or informal collection of editors pushing a particular point of view . . . That is, the Arbs know how to be administrators, they all come from that, but they don't know how to *manage* administrators. They are chosen by popularity, not for management skills, and Wikipedia overwhelms even the best of them. It seems to me you need rules that people can live with and that do not overwhelm even the best administrators. Rules that result in people being overwhelmed need revision. The larger community *does* support the guidelines and policies, the cabals attempt to subvert them and even sometimes openly oppose them. If the larger community supports these things, why are they not enforced? Is there no enforcement mechanism? In that case the rules are inadequate. Look, want to accomplish something on Wikipedia? No, I hope it withers away. Maybe what Abd has in mind here is that the rules are good and with a little tweaking they would work. It seems to me these rules were invented for Wikipedia. They do not work well because they are novel. I am conservative. I think it is better to apply old rules that were invented for conventional media and for conventional academic forums, such as the rules used to run physics conferences. Rule number one should be everyone has to use his or her real name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Gene-Doping
Not to diminish the work done by ARPA-E, take a look at this from DARPA: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/09/10.aspx It really gives me the creeps. T
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Yes you did say. You said that hot fusion researchers are trying to 'suppress' it and indeed hot fusion research is operating with extremely big money. As noted that was Abd, not me. However, it is true that the plasma fusion scientists played a leading role in suppressing cold fusion. I suppose they did this mainly to protect their budget. There is no doubt they played a leading role. They did it quite publicly, in the mass media. They are proud of what they did. I suppose plasma fusion funding is big money. It is far bigger than most academic funding. But I take the expression big money to mean businesses, Wall Street, the DoD or political parties. Academic funding is microscopic in comparison. The opposition to cold fusion is caused by academic politics, in two ways: 1. Scientists tend to be conservative and unwilling to believe new information. Most of them know nothing about cold fusion but they are certain it must be wrong. 2. Academic funding may be small, but it is how these people make their living. If cold fusion is funded many academic researchers in other areas related to energy will lose their livelihoods. So they will fight it tooth and nail. I suppose I would too, if I were in their place. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: Gene-Doping
... brave new world, indeed ... and they chose not to show the version with the ray gun (high powered semiconductor laser array) ... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Not to diminish the work done by ARPA-E, take a look at this from DARPA: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/09/10.aspx It really gives me the creeps. T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Gene-Doping
Not exactly stealthy... On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... brave new world, indeed ... and they chose not to show the version with the ray gun (high powered semiconductor laser array) ... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Not to diminish the work done by ARPA-E, take a look at this from DARPA: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/09/10.aspx It really gives me the creeps. T
Re: [Vo]:OT: Gene-Doping
Maybe they should just go back to horses mules .. much cheaper. --On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:07 AM -0400 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Not to diminish the work done by ARPA-E, take a look at this from DARPA: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/09/10.aspx It really gives me the creeps. T
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Yes you did say. You said that hot fusion researchers are trying to 'suppress' it and indeed hot fusion research is operating with extremely big money. ... I suppose plasma fusion funding is big money. It is far bigger than most academic funding. But I take the expression big money to mean businesses, Wall Street, the DoD or political parties. Academic funding is microscopic in comparison. This is a perfect case-in-point for the situation described in Institutional Incompetence, Conspiracy Theories and Pol Pothttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html : Part of the problem is that almost all institutional incompetence derives from faulty incentive structures, so it is easy to impute to the critic the claim that such incompetence is not incompetence at all but, rather, is self-interest. The critic is hard-pressed to deny this (except insofar as such self-interest is unenlightened hence incompetent in that meta-sense) and is thence imputed to theorize a conspiracy of self-interested individuals as the basis for the maintenance of the institutionalized incompetence. Again, the critic may not have put forth nor even have thought of such a theory but he is hard-pressed to disprove that a conspiracy -- in some sense -- is at work so he cannot very well vigorously deny such a theory. This vulnerability of the critic is then viciously attacked. This all goes on within a subtext of the conversation so it is a rare critic that recognizes how the burden of proof has been shifted from the institutionally incompetent needing to prove that the critic has theorized a conspiracy (which, of course, would require defining conspiracy) to the critic needing to prove that such a conspiracy (the definition of which is, after all, in the mind of the institutionally incompetent) is clearly out of the question despite the vagueness of the term multiplied by the lack of information with which to support or deny even a clear definition. So, the institution of Critics are crazy people. successfully defends all institutional incompetence.
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 16:12 Dienstag, 11.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Yes you did say. You said that hot fusion researchers are trying to 'suppress' it and indeed hot fusion research is operating with extremely big money. As noted that was Abd, not me. However, it is true that the plasma fusion scientists played a leading role in suppressing cold fusion. I suppose they did this mainly to protect their budget. There is no doubt they played a leading role. not over here (Germany). As far as i know, the MPP, which is the biggest May-Planck-Institute, tried to replicate F/P and failed. so the issue was settled. They did it quite publicly, in the mass media. They are proud of what they did. Not really over here. This was a standard scientific issue of failure of replication. Maybe erroneous and for the wrong reasons, as it now seems to be the case. I suppose plasma fusion funding is big money. It is far bigger than most academic funding. It is big money, yes, but is PURE government money. Per 2010 16 Billion Euro, with 6.6 european money. But I take the expression big money to mean businesses, Wall Street, the DoD or political parties. Academic funding is microscopic in comparison. The opposition to cold fusion is caused by academic politics, in two ways: 1. Scientists tend to be conservative and unwilling to believe new information. Most of them know nothing about cold fusion but they are certain it must be wrong. this is Kuhnian Structure of Scientific Revolutions. nothin new here. 2. Academic funding may be small, it is not. but it is how these people make their living. If cold fusion is funded many academic researchers in other areas related to energy will lose their livelihoods. Ofcourse. So they will fight it tooth and nail. I suppose I would too, if I were in their place. No, they do'nt. It is sufficient to ignore the issue. The fusion guys have a lot of problems with their own design, and them to even CONSIDER cold fusion as a relevant contender, is outside of any reasonable consideration. So to even consider a Rossi as a significant contender wrt funding-money, is so far out, that one safely can consider this irrelevant. To my experience, the direction of funding and its possible redirection to competing fields is an EXTREMELY slow process, and can be measured in decades, not years. Guenter - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: not over here (Germany). As far as i know, the MPP, which is the biggest May-Planck-Institute, tried to replicate F/P and failed. so the issue was settled. I do not know about this test, but it would be ridiculous to reject cold fusion based on one test in 1989, especially after 100 other labs replicated successfully. In any case, in 1990 the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry wrote that he was certain the effect is real. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:23 Dienstag, 11.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: not over here (Germany). As far as i know, the MPP, which is the biggest May-Planck-Institute, tried to replicate F/P and failed. so the issue was settled. I do not know about this test, but it would be ridiculous to reject cold fusion based on one test in 1989, especially after 100 other labs replicated successfully. In any case, in 1990 the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry wrote that he was certain the effect is real. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf - Jed This is a completely different institute, and one probaly has to know the intricacies of the Max-Planck organization. Max-planck Directors are basically completely independent feudal lords, and the institute is resumed, when the 'master' retires. at least this was the idea when the Max Planck Institutes were termed 'Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft'. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft_zur_Foerderung_der_Wissenschaften#Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute Never mind. The IPP is different, in that it is so large that the old concept does not apply anymore. It -the old concept- applies to budgets of several millions, and not hundreds of millions. The IPP is the biggest of all Max-Planck institutes, and therefore has 10 Directors., which form a collective, and is alien to the original -as said- feudal conception of a scientific lordship. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE THOSE! Foreigners naturally do not understand the fine-print of such a delicate institution. I can understand that. Wikipedia does not tell the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck_Institute_of_Plasma_Physics. The German wikipedia neither, btw. in German it reads like this: ... Im Mai 2010 teilte die Europäische Kommission mit, dass laut einer aktuellen Kostenschätzung ihr Anteil an den Baukosten von ehemals geplanten 2,7 Milliarden Euro auf 7,3 Milliarden Euro steigen wird. Daraus errechnen sich Gesamtkosten in Höhe von 16 Milliarden Euro. ... Die EU deckelte daraufhin ihren Anteil bei 6,6 Milliarden Euro. Sie will die Kostensteigerungen durch Umschichtungen aus dem Agrar- und dem Forschungsetat decken. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Finanzierung You do not need to be a native german speaker to know from where the wind blows. This is BIG money, and it is government money! Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion has been suppressed -- no evidence for a conspiracy
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: This is a completely different institute, and one probaly has to know the intricacies of the Max-Planck organization. The same or different, you would think that the Director's opinions might have weight when it comes to accepting or rejecting a important claim. Cold fusion is not the sort of thing you should try once and the put aside. In view of the fact that hundreds of other labs successfully replicated, it is incumbent upon any scientific organization to look carefully, and not to jump to conclusions. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE THOSE! I am not comparing them. I am pointing out that German's leading electrochemist endorsed cold fusion. Foreigners naturally do not understand the fine-print of such a delicate institution. I can understand that. Altogether too delicate. Subject to fainting spells, no doubt. They can't bring themselves to take a second look at the most important breakthrough in the history of technology. Poor dears! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine. New idea!
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, there was some discussion about this alleged perpetual motion machine. It was elegant, perhaps too elegant, and therefore it is probably a fake. Evolution of perpetual motion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE The idea is however simple and understandable and I refuse to believe that it is impossible, because I do not see how it could violate the quantum mechanics and the conservation of information. what is the conservation of information? As we know, that it based on improved version of SMOT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy). SMOT itself is a failed perpetual motion machine, because no one has managed to return the iron ball back to the starting square. Therefore, no energy is created and friction will win. However I developed a magnetic switch that can be applied to weaken the starting point magnetic field by 20%. Therefore rotational energy should be enough to overcome the sticking point. And when sticking point is behind, magnets are again switched on by heating and new revolution is started with full force. As we discussed earlier, it takes about 360 mJ energy to align dipoles and magnetize 1 cm³ neodymium magnet. On the other hand, when magnet is demagnetized 360 mJ heat is released. The alignment process itself is just normal information processing that does not consume energy more than is required to account entropy. We can demonstrate that demagnetization is exothermic reaction if we are heating magnet to curie temperature, because it will take 360 mJ less energy than heating similar non-magnetized body to curie point. Demagnetization does not take energy, but it releases energy. Therefore we can use cooling as rudimentary switch mechanism. Neodymium magnets loses about 20% of magnetism when magnet is cooled from -150°C to -250°C. With other alloys this kind of 'phase transition' could be more prominent that changes the crystal lattice structure so that dipoles get even more misaligned. And when magnet is heated back above transition temperature (-150°C with neodymium magnet), magnet is again magnetized as dipole structure realigns. Hence this alignment and misalignment cycle can be fully reversible. This way we could get also SMOT-derived perpetual motion machine working continuously, if we turn off the magnets when wheel is approaching the sticking point. Therefore, as magnetic field is temporarily weakened with flash-cooling, rotational energy of the wheel would be sufficient for overcoming the sticking point (and friction). This cooling and heating cycle does not bring external energy to the system, because permanent magnets do not store energy. Therefore this cooling and heating idea will not nullify the idea of perpetual motion machine, because we do not use that heat energy for doing the work as a heat engine. This is also where magnetism differs from nitinol spring based heat engine. Permanent magnets do not store energy contradicts your earlier statement that demagnetisation releases energy. —Jouni For neodymium magnet behavior at cryogenic temperatures, see: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=temperature-and-neodymium-magnets Harry
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: No, I hope it withers away. I appreciate the sentiment. But I'll place myself on record for thinking that Wikipedia is incredible. It is one of the handiest things to come about in the last ten or so years. Obviously readers must beware. It is not good for the unlucky junior high school student who reads it uncritically. And there are articles, such as the one on cold fusion, that are guarded by ignorant trolls. But if one can apply a filter to everything one reads, Wikipedia is a trove of valuable information. Eric
[Vo]:New paper on cavitation/sonofusion
Cavitation-Induced Fusion: Proof of Concept - Max I. Fomitchev-Zamilov Cavitation-induced fusion (also known as bubble fusion or sonofusion) has been a topic of much debate and controversy and is generally (albeit incorrectly) perceived as unworkable. In this paper we present the theoretical foundations of cavitation-induced fusion and summarize the experimental results of the research conducted in the past 20 years. Based on the systematic study of all available data we conclude that the cavitation-induced fusion is feasible, doable, and can be used for commercial power generation. We present the results of our own research and disclose a commercial reactor prototype. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2407.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Compressed spring - what happens to the stored energy at different temperatures?
For my own edification I continued to think about the issue of potential energy gain and loss and I realise it depends on the interatomic forces within the spring. Cooling the compressed spring reduces the vibrations of the atoms in the spring, and allows the interatomic forces to strengthen bonds among atoms and therefore shift them into lower energy states. As a result the atoms collectively act to make the spring more rigid so the potential energy stored in the compressed spring increases. Warming the compressed spring increases the vibrations of the atoms in the spring, and works against the interatomic forces to weaken bonds among atoms and therefore shift them into higher energy states. As a result the atoms collectively act to make the spring less rigid so the potential energy stored in the compressed spring decreases. This doesn't mean I think the principle of conservation of energy is universally true, but I try to understand what I don't accept. Harry
[Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
Low Energy Neutron Reaactions (LENRs) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen -- or at -- http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14256059?hostedIn=slidesharereferer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Flewisglarsen# - proposes that high temp superconductivity may develop in surface plasmons when very high (10^11 V/m) E-field gradients develop at the interface between collectively oscillating electrons and collectively oscillating protons. Perhaps this is testable using laser pulses, as described in - Surface plasmon enhanced electron acceleration with few-cycle laser pulses http://www.szfki.hu/~dombi/DombiLPB27_291.pdf - since they can create field gradients of at least 3.7 X 10^11 V/m (p.293) -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
Lasers not necessary? Hasn't Celani been reporting a negative temperature coefficient of resistance that appears about the time his processed wires begin producing heat? I might have this wrong ... Jeff On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Low Energy Neutron Reaactions (LENRs) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen -- or at -- http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14256059?hostedIn=slidesharereferer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Flewisglarsen# - proposes that high temp superconductivity may develop in surface plasmons when very high (10^11 V/m) E-field gradients develop at the interface between collectively oscillating electrons and collectively oscillating protons. Perhaps this is testable using laser pulses, as described in - Surface plasmon enhanced electron acceleration with few-cycle laser pulses http://www.szfki.hu/~dombi/DombiLPB27_291.pdf - since they can create field gradients of at least 3.7 X 10^11 V/m (p.293) -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
To answer my own question: yes, here http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnallo.pdf on page 3, in item (3) of the numbered list. Of course, it could be some unrelated effect; but decreasing electrical resistance with increasing temperature is very odd, and it certainly is an interesting coincidence. Jeff On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Lasers not necessary? Hasn't Celani been reporting a negative temperature coefficient of resistance that appears about the time his processed wires begin producing heat? I might have this wrong ... Jeff On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Low Energy Neutron Reaactions (LENRs) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen -- or at -- http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14256059?hostedIn=slidesharereferer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Flewisglarsen# - proposes that high temp superconductivity may develop in surface plasmons when very high (10^11 V/m) E-field gradients develop at the interface between collectively oscillating electrons and collectively oscillating protons. Perhaps this is testable using laser pulses, as described in - Surface plasmon enhanced electron acceleration with few-cycle laser pulses http://www.szfki.hu/~dombi/DombiLPB27_291.pdf - since they can create field gradients of at least 3.7 X 10^11 V/m (p.293) -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:New paper on cavitation/sonofusion
Doesn’t LeClair’s cavatation patent take the Quantum Potential Corporation out of the fusion from cavitation business? Cheers: Axil On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Cavitation-Induced Fusion: Proof of Concept - Max I. Fomitchev-Zamilov Cavitation-induced fusion (also known as bubble fusion or sonofusion) has been a topic of much debate and controversy and is generally (albeit incorrectly) perceived as unworkable. In this paper we present the theoretical foundations of cavitation-induced fusion and summarize the experimental results of the research conducted in the past 20 years. Based on the systematic study of all available data we conclude that the cavitation-induced fusion is feasible, doable, and can be used for commercial power generation. We present the results of our own research and disclose a commercial reactor prototype. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2407.pdf
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
Jeff, The reports cited in the presentation are of hi-temp superconductivity (I believe), rather than just non-monotonic resistivity vs. temp phenomena. It may be worth looking at the recently reported hi-temp superconductivity seen in fractal materials - e.g., High-temperature superconductivity: The benefit of fractal dirt http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7308/full/466825a.html Fractals make better superconductors http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=39593 Fractals promise higher-temperature Superconductors http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Fractals_04.pdf X-rays control disorder in superconductor http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/31/x-rays-control-disorder-in-superconductor Fractals boost superconductivity http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/aug/13/fractals-boost-superconductivity -- Lou Pagnucco Jeff Berkowitz wrote: To answer my own question: yes, here http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnallo.pdf on page 3, in item (3) of the numbered list. Of course, it could be some unrelated effect; but decreasing electrical resistance with increasing temperature is very odd, and it certainly is an interesting coincidence. Jeff On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Lasers not necessary? Hasn't Celani been reporting a negative temperature coefficient of resistance that appears about the time his processed wires begin producing heat? I might have this wrong ... Jeff On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Low Energy Neutron Reaactions (LENRs) http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen -- or at -- http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14256059?hostedIn=slidesharereferer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Flewisglarsen# - proposes that high temp superconductivity may develop in surface plasmons when very high (10^11 V/m) E-field gradients develop at the interface between collectively oscillating electrons and collectively oscillating protons. Perhaps this is testable using laser pulses, as described in - Surface plasmon enhanced electron acceleration with few-cycle laser pulses http://www.szfki.hu/~dombi/DombiLPB27_291.pdf - since they can create field gradients of at least 3.7 X 10^11 V/m (p.293) -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:New paper on cavitation/sonofusion
Axil, Good question. Does anyone know the patent attorney, David French? I believe he specializes in these issues. -- LP Axil wrote: Doesnt LeClairs cavatation patent take the Quantum Potential Corporation out of the fusion from cavitation business? Cheers: Axil On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Cavitation-Induced Fusion: Proof of Concept - Max I. Fomitchev-Zamilov Cavitation-induced fusion (also known as bubble fusion or sonofusion) has been a topic of much debate and controversy and is generally (albeit incorrectly) perceived as unworkable. In this paper we present the theoretical foundations of cavitation-induced fusion and summarize the experimental results of the research conducted in the past 20 years. Based on the systematic study of all available data we conclude that the cavitation-induced fusion is feasible, doable, and can be used for commercial power generation. We present the results of our own research and disclose a commercial reactor prototype. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2407.pdf
