Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time > goes either forward or backwards. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_translation_symmetry > This typical thinking assumes much. Like 'doing the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of 'bullshit'. Online

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

What the Rossi experiments has shown over many years is that LENR in a lattice is not workable because the reaction cannot be controlled. The LENR reaction wants to operate at the boiling point of the metal lattice (nickel) which is 3000K. Rossi has struggled to control the LENR reaction at low

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

Holmlid has explained that metalized hydrogen is a superatom where the positive charge carriers are located in the center of the crystal and the negative charged carriers are located in a cloud orbiting around the positive center. This metalized structure is an example of HOLE

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

more... In the proton 21 case, no hydrogen is present. So the perplexing thing for me to understand is that both nanowires and metalized hydrogen look and perform identically in these emission studies. In order to preface Keith Fredericks' video, a proviso is offered. In order to get the

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

I am not sure why there being no advantage for deuterium means that this was not cold fusion. If there was a fusion process in these situations that started with protons then would this also not be cold fusion? Given that we are in a territory that is far removed from the standard plasma

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil wrote: IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at > http://restframe.com/ > > > Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does > understand how the metalized hydride behaves. > > Keith

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric: I notice that you didn't bother to address my example. Twice, now. Readers will be the judge of your moderating capabilities. You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only one side of

[Vo]:Re: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th

Energy , cold Fusion, and Antigravity I can't give it away. There is no interest on anyone's part. Parrot Teacher is again #2 in sales. https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/mobile-apps/9408731011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_mas_1_3_last That is telling. Frank Znidarsic -Original

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis? Didn't Arrata load up his cells with pycnodeuterium and no power input? On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Che wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > IMHO, the person

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Good post from EcatWorld, pulling some items from behind a paywall: Engineer48 • 20 hours ago [hush]​[hide comment] Some details of the initial shots fired by IH &

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric: Of COURSE you're happy with your own moderating because you are so one-sided at the approach. You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case. You have a one-sided perception. HE WAS THE ONE WHO

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed > at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case. You have a > one-sided perception. HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content > but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only > one side of the insults. > Crass language and attacks

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

The Fredericks work is with photographic emulsion, which is a light-sensitive chemical reaction used in photography. That kind of film is much easier to expose and consequently it has limited usefulness for LENR. Even body heat from the experimenter's handling can produce fogging. X-ray film

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have > something else to say. You aren't even a man of your word. > Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter with you.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Eric, you said you would not post any more. The issue isn't that Mary Yugo insults people. The issue is that you ALLOW those insults from one side but not another. You like to read intent in what I do but you aren't reading intent into what THEY do. And I'm not even saying to exclude Mary.

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time goes either forward or backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_translation_symmetry To the best of my knowledge, most physicists don't believe that antimatter is *actually* matter moving backwards in time. It's not

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

​Ok then. At what point are you "disengaging"? If you "clarify" after you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you? At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted standards? ​ On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

which is sad, because Galileo's physics led to the idea of point-particle; which many people rebel against such an existential crisis in  physics Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in physics R Anderton ANPA 2016 | | | | || | | | ||

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

>>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants Galileo was pugnacious On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker wrote: Hi Kevin, On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You have a perception of someone who claims to

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address. Eric -- Forwarded message -- From: Eric Walker Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden To: ROGER ANDERTON Hi Roger, If Galileo

RE: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

Just as a clarification of semantics being used in this thread: It is useful to use the term gamma to describe EM radiation that originates from a change in the energy state of a nuclear entity or reaction between two or more nuclear entities. Thus, an excited nuclear entity may decay from an

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

Whenever muons appear, fusion of light elements will occur and fission of heavy elements will happen. So fusion could be a secondary reaction set up by the primary reaction which is the creation of muons. Muons can be produced in two ways, one... they could be a product on nucleon decay, and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

Geez, Eric, it's like pulling teeth. You don't see where the source of the problem is. The source is when someone STARTS insults and gets away with it. You let some people on your forum insult away. Now you want to attract Vorts who are going to have to go through the same kind of bullshit