Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Humour is an act of aggression. A German academic sees humour as an act of aggression, and says that people who make others laugh think that they are higher up the social ladder than their audiences. Helga Kotthoff, of the Frieburg University of Education, claims that dominant people exploit the ability to make others laugh as a degree of control to show that they are in charge. The research, which was published in the Journal of Pragmatics, suggest that the role of humour is not to make other people laugh as much as it is to make others know who is in charge. The theory explains why until recently it has been extremely rare for women to tell jokes in front of men, according to Helga Kotthoff of the Frieburg University of Education. She said: Those 'on top' are freer to make others laugh. They are also freer to be more aggressive and a lot of what is funny is making jokes at someone else's expense. Displaying humour means taking control of the situation from those higher up the hierarchy and this is risky for people of lower status, which before the 1960s meant women rarely made other people laugh - they couldn't afford to. Comedy and satire are based on aggressiveness and not being nice, she said. Until the 1960s it was seen as unladylike to be funny. But even now women tend to prefer telling jokes at their own expense and men tend to prefer telling jokes at other people's expense. Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Projecting further and consistent with the use of aggressive humor, MY’s objection with Rossi borders on the pathological and may be an attempt to assert dominance over Rossi as a perceived object of our adoration as well as the other members of this forum by cutting Rossi down to size as it were, discounting and belittling his accomplishments and oftentimes inferring and sometimes openly asserting he is no more than a common criminal; i.e. a man of no consequence juxtaposed to MY himself. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It was joke-- pls. lighten up!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
2011/12/16 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Are MY two people ? Mary - y (=and) - Ugo ?
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Humor is an sadly complex and intricate subject, I have studied is an amateur, starting with Bergson's La rire In my former newsletter Info Kappa I wrote two editorials, 358 and 359 about Humor. This theory is very important I think: http://www.pyrrhichouse.co.uk/book-info/alastair-clarke.php Otherwise, in practice humor is a 3 S issue: sadism, sex, shit. Here it is comme il faut to practice a bit of sadistic humor. To Susan- it is not very relevant if Mary is e-female or e-male. She owns what I miss- certainties. I envy her for that. Again not important that this certainties are negative re Rossi. We need time, 3-6 months I think to have a definitive solution- scam or a new technology. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Humour is an act of aggression. A German academic sees humour as an act of aggression, and says that people who make others laugh think that they are higher up the social ladder than their audiences. Helga Kotthoff, of the Frieburg University of Education, claims that dominant people exploit the ability to make others laugh as a degree of control to show that they are in charge. The research, which was published in the Journal of Pragmatics, suggest that the role of humour is not to make other people laugh as much as it is to make others know who is in charge. The theory explains why until recently it has been extremely rare for women to tell jokes in front of men, according to Helga Kotthoff of the Frieburg University of Education. She said: Those 'on top' are freer to make others laugh. They are also freer to be more aggressive and a lot of what is funny is making jokes at someone else's expense. Displaying humour means taking control of the situation from those higher up the hierarchy and this is risky for people of lower status, which before the 1960s meant women rarely made other people laugh - they couldn't afford to. Comedy and satire are based on aggressiveness and not being nice, she said. Until the 1960s it was seen as unladylike to be funny. But even now women tend to prefer telling jokes at their own expense and men tend to prefer telling jokes at other people's expense. Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Projecting further and consistent with the use of aggressive humor, MY’s objection with Rossi borders on the pathological and may be an attempt to assert dominance over Rossi as a perceived object of our adoration as well as the other members of this forum by cutting Rossi down to size as it were, discounting and belittling his accomplishments and oftentimes inferring and sometimes openly asserting he is no more than a common criminal; i.e. a man of no consequence juxtaposed to MY himself. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: It was joke-- pls. lighten up! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
Hi, On 15-12-2011 19:13, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: I wonder if MY is taking lessons from Mr. Krivit. I wonder if MY is one and the same Mr. Krivit. Could that explain the secrecy in the identity game? B.t.w. for those who say I do the same thing, look at the characters in my name and then realize it is actually an anagram for my name. So is Sending Rambo also another one. And for those who do understand Dutch I've a nice other one: Nam Gods Brein; which literally translated means took God's Brain ;-) Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Possible Proof of Peter's theory of gravity and New Matter Accrual
- Original Nachricht Von: Wm. Scott Smith scott...@hotmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com, peter.heck...@arcor.de Datum: 16.12.2011 00:26 Betreff: [Vo]:Possible Proof of Peter's theory of gravity and New Matter Accrual Peter, your thoughts about matter sucking ZPE and accruing mass may be extremely important. Your theory is a fascinatingly possible explanation for how the Earth has grown to its present size. Scott, thank you very much for this encouraging comment. I am now at work and will read it at evening, have no time now. I wanted to add this: If matter converts ZPE into matter, then this explains why matter exists. If this happen, then it is of course a ZPE process also. This means, LENR cannot only produce energy, it can store virtually unlimited amounts of energy by a nuclear or quantum process and release it at a later point in time. This explains why many experiments only work after a lot of preparations and trials and why electrodes that worked before, also work later. So I think, LENR resesearchers should consider and experimentally if energy can be lost in LENR processes. This does of course not mean it is really lost, it means energy is stored as an atomar or quantum state of matter and it can be released later. If this is the case, it would be a great discovery that also solves global energy problems. There is sun- and windenergy more than enough, the only problem is storage and transport. So far I know, nobody has yet considered or researched this possibility. best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: There is an example that is interesting. Gravitational wave detection. As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection has been done yet. Doesn't fit the question though, since the concept has never been considered fringe. There are plenty of theoretical predictions that took decades to be observed, including neutrinos (26 years), quarks (20 years for top), Higgs boson (40-some years and counting), lasers (40 years, sorta), and others.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work. It's probably the case that most pseudo-sciences that survive 20 years or more are likely to maintain some following indefinitely, and so may not be considered debunked until adherents disappear by attrition. Evidently Blondlott continued to be convinced of N-rays until his death. And perpetual motion will likely have adherents for a long time. If by pathological you mean sciences not accepted (or rejected outright) by mainstream science, then there are very clearly *many* examples that have persisted far longer than 20 years, including perpetual motion, homeopathy (and other alternative medical treatments), and any paranormal or religious claims like astrology or scientology or creationism (intelligent design). Global warming denialism might also fit some characteristics of pathological science. Straight chiropractic based on vitalism also fits the pathological bill, although most chiropractors try to distance themselves from vitalism, and have found some legitimacy in the mainstream; after all, massage and certain exercises (physiotherapy) are undoubtedly beneficial. Acupuncture has also found some mainstream support, but conclusive evidence of efficacy is still not established, and the concept of meridians and qi is not scientifically accepted. It's very difficult in the case of acupuncture to do blank controls; you know when someone sticks a needle in you. There are not very many examples like cold fusion, where a rather simple non-paranormal phenomenon, claimed in a controlled experiments, is rejected for decades by the mainstream, but still maintains a substantial following. Perpetual motion is the obvious similar example, and it has in common with cold fusion, the profound implications for the betterment of mankind. Perhaps water dowsing is another, although that is often considered paranormal as well. Alien sightings are not considered paranormal (usually), but are not results of controlled experiments. Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value. Taking decades to develop does not mean the principles or the basis were rejected by the mainstream. None of those examples are now,nor were they ever considered pathological or pseudoscientific.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is, or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and one thing only: FUNDING. Money. Status. Power. Maybe the scientists you know, but certainly not the vast majority. A career in science is not particularly lucrative in most cases. Incomes are typical of most professions, and probably lower on average than in medicine or law or finance. Considering that most scientists don't begin to earn a real salary (beyond post-doctoral stipends) until they are pushing 30, their lifetime earnings are often not much better than teachers or nurses or engineers or computer scientists. And they well understand the magic of the exponential function, and the value of money earned in the third decade. Academic scientists generally earn salaries that are fairly independent of the success of their research, at least to first order. That is to say, a minority generate income from inventions or patents or licenses and so on, though some clearly do. But even if it were true that they acted purely out of greed for money and status, the best way to achieve those things is to make revolutionary discoveries, so it does not contradict my claim. Regardless of what you say, awards in science are granted for novel discoveries, as is research funding, and with those come status and power. Einstein, Bohr, Planck, and Hawking did not gain their status by making shit up. They actually made discoveries. That's how you make an impact. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. A few scientists may make things up for financial gain, but I can't think of very many examples, and they certainly don't include the most famous and most prestigious scientists or the most wealthy scientists. The disgraced Andrew Wakefield is one example. But most scientists are pretty honest, and got into science because it is an interesting and agreeable career. And as I said, success in the career (including financial) is measured by novelty and discovery, not by confirmations of old ideas. You can set up a project with no hope of success, no scientific value, and which is a fantastic waste of money, such as Star Wars or plasma fusion. Scientist will flock to join. Scientists that flock to join don't agree with your assessment. And why should they? What do you know? Most scientist think of cold fusion research as a waste of time, and yet you wouldn't hold it against your friends if they accepted funding for the research, would you? Many scientists were strongly critical of the SDI, and many of those that became involved rationalized it by potential spin-offs, which have been borne out in things like x-ray laser imaging. Obviously many people who do not benefit from plasma fusion consider the research worth the gamble, your opinion notwithstanding. They will swear they believe in it. You can present theories with no basis, no means of verification, and no possible use, such as string theory. They will publish happily, and award prizes. But there's not a lotta moolah in string theory. People that go after it are interested in the aesthetics. The scientific validity and the degree of novelty has nothing to do with resistance to a new idea. The only metric that matters is moola. The least practical ideas often meet no resistance because no one is already being paid to do them. If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance, and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop. You can keep thinking this if it helps you sleep at night, and I suppose if you believe cold fusion, you will believe anything, but this is even less plausible than cold fusion. The plasma fusion people simply don't have that kind of power. How can they affect the research in Japan, Italy, and China? If cold fusion were valid, it would be in the government's interest, strategically, economically, and environmentally, to support it. And the money that supports plasma fusion is from the government. Why would they fund something contrary to their own interest? They are well aware of conflicts of interest, and know how to avoid it in funding the research they deem most productive and useful for their own benefit, and the benefit of the country. And why do the plasma fusion people not shut down research in fission or solar or wind? This sort of paranoid conspiracy theory gives your field a bad name. A single
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk. But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a pathological science.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Who the hell cares?
Re: [Vo]:Was Technetium ever detected in LENR experiments?
But, what about transmutation in general? Even without WL theory, there should be an explanation for that. 2011/12/16 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium * Technetium* ([image: play] /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyɛhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key k http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyˈhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyiːhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key ʃ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keyihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key ə http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Keymhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English *tek-nee -shee-əm*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key) is the chemical element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element with atomic number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number 43 and symbol *Tc*. It is the lowest atomic numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number element without any stable isotopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope; every form of it is radioactive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive. Nearly all technetium is produced synthetically and only minute amounts are found in nature. Naturally occurring technetium occurs as a spontaneous fission product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product in uranium orehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore or by neutron capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capturein molybdenum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum ores. The chemical properties of this silvery gray, crystalline transition metalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal are intermediate between rhenium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenium and manganese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese. It would be at least an evidence for WL theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com As far as I know, tritium is the only radioactive product of LENR. Neutrons have been detected at a ratio of 10^-5 to 10^-8 neutrons per tritium. If WL were true then numerous radioactive products would result from LENR. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? If we see physics as a statistical phenomenom, then energy is another word for probability. So, Low Energy reactions are low probability reactions - reactions that dont happen frequently ;-) It is therefore improbable to get energy out of them ;-) From a logical and scientific point of view LENR is a contradiction in itself. The acronym was invented purposefully to avoid the stigma of cold fusion, but it was not made by scientifically and logically thinking people. Cold means low temperature, but it doesnt mean low energy. There can still be high energy in form of tension, pressure or voltage. Therefore LENR is not a good idea. It is very misleading. It is very unscientific. Cold Fusion is a better idea, even if it might be not a correct description. Arent there better words?
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
On 2011-12-16 14:49, Peter Heckert wrote: LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Brief Deflation Fusion Summary
On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: But, what about transmutation in general? Even without WL theory, there should be an explanation for that. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com I have my own take on that, my deflation fusion theory. If I had not spent so much time on Rossi I would have had a FAQ on that. Following is a quick summary of what deflation fusion is all about. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF DEFLATION FUSION THEORY My theory has evolved from this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusionExp.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf to this: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf MAGNETISM AND DEFLATION FUSION Magnetic orbitals involving electrons with either deuterons, protons, or positive quarks, are the essence of Deflation Fusion concepts. The magnetic force due to spin coupling is a 1/r^4 force, while the Coulomb force is a 1/r^2 force. At close radii, the magnetic binding between electron and nucleating particle greatly exceeds the Coulomb force, though magnetically bound orbitals are intrinsically unstable, due to their 1/r^4 nature. The hydrogen electron is momentarily bound to its nucleus in a very small magnetic orbital periodically, but briefly, on the order of an attosecond. This is the deflated state. This magnetically bound small state, being neutral, but having a very large magnetic moment for a nucleus, has a significant probability of tunneling to any adjacent nucleus that has a magnetic moment. The magnetic gradients provide the net energy for tunneling of the neutral deflated state hydrogen to the adjacent nucleus. Heavy lattice nuclei magnetic moments are periodically enhanced by electrons which enter the nucleus in their ordinary orbital states. That orbital electrons enter nuclei is evidenced by the facts that (1) they are point particles in valid QM treatments, with non-zero nucleus residence probabilites, and (2) evidenced by the existence of electron capture. The magnetic moment of an electron is 3 orders of magnitude larger than typical nuclei. Some nuclei have no magnetic moment at all. Orbital electrons, when in a heavy nucleus, have the ability to form momentary small deflated state nuclear components within the heavy nuclei, and thus provide extremely large nuclear magnetic moments, three orders of magnitude larger than typical nuclei, to the heavy nuclei. When in the nucleus, the electrons can momentarily magnetically bind to nuclear particles, such as protons or quarks, including strange quarks, sometimes resulting in weak reactions between an electron and strange quark, thereby leaving behind unpaired strange matter. Strange quark pairs are produced from the vacuum in nuclei. If one strange quark is weakly transmuted, or catalytically extracted, then the paired strange quark remains behind in a potentially long term stable form. By my theory, nuclear electrons have the ability to catalyze strange particle production from the vacuum and separate them, as well as produce low energy state and thus stable product particles. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf This strange matter catalysis process, which is primarily magnetic force based, has the potential to produce and store antimatter, and to dwarf the capacity and energy density of all other methods of energy storage and production. The momentary extremely low energy state of deflated nuclei in a heavy nucleus reaction has the potential to produce stable and separated matter and antimatter strange particles, hyperons, and hyper nuclei. That is perhaps the most significant part of deflation fusion theory. The formation of the deflated state in bare hydrogen nuclei, e.g. lattice absorbed nuclei, is feasible in an electron flux provided the flux density is high enough. I theorized this some years ago. What is new, and related to Brian Ahern's work, is the significance of magnetic vortices, i.e. electron vortices. These vortices produce a dense electron flux in the vicinity of absorbed hydrogen nuclei, and thus can be expected to greatly enhance the probability of the deflated state hydrogen nuclei in their presence. Once an electron is momentarily trapped in a heavy lattice nucleus, and the nucleus has orders of magnitude larger magnetic moment, that nucleus can act as a nucleating point for numerous other deflated state hydrogen nuclei to tunnel into that heavy nucleus, thus trapping multiple new hydrogen nuclei and, their magnetically bound electrons, from every lattice locus nearby. In a dense lattice
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
I have noticed that McKubre often uses LANR: Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions. mic 2011/12/16 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com: On 2011-12-16 14:49, Peter Heckert wrote: LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, is this possible? What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-15 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis? Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember. As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been done but I have not looked for them. Chiropractors also abuse and misuse and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays. I am not convinced chiropractic as practiced now should be legal. I once encountered a woman who had delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from metastasis and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain. A medical doctor would have been more likely to have done the right tests and made the right diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with a new patient or a serious new complaint. If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. As it happens, once breast cancer has metastasized into the bones it's considered stage 4, incurable by conventional means, so she may not have missed much by failing to have it properly diagnosed... OTOH such tales of totally retarded diagnoses by chiropractors are not so uncommon as all that. Someone my dad knew was being treated by chiropractor for a pinched nerve. He finally went to a regular doctor (due to the urging of his wife) and found out it was heart disease. (Lucky for him, he found out *before* the autopsy.)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On 11-12-16 03:20 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. I already pointed this out, but I did it in a jocular way, and she didn't get the joke, no, not at all. Got rather defensive about it, in fact, or so it seemed to me.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On 11-12-16 04:29 AM, Man on Bridges wrote: Hi, On 15-12-2011 19:13, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: I wonder if MY is taking lessons from Mr. Krivit. I wonder if MY is one and the same Mr. Krivit. NO, no way. When it comes to science, Krivit's something approximating an idiot. MY isn't. (Just my rather rude opinion of the two of them.)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T-Shirt for sale at Zazzle.com
That's hysterical. I would get one if he were not flipping the bird. I don't like vulgarity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On 11-12-16 06:07 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Who the hell cares? I guess you haven't been around the crackpot forums much, or you haven't been paying attention to the behavior of the folks there. Nearly all members of the fringe science forums are male. (Go look around places like sci.physics.relativity if you don't believe me.) This is 'way out of proportion to the number of women in science; I don't have an explanation for the discrepancy. (Women aren't as nutty as men?) However, I do have an observation: When a woman (or apparent woman) shows up, she gets *far* more responses to her posts than a man (or apparent man) would by posting the same sort of material. So, being a woman on the fringe lists is enough to garner an awful lot of attention, all by itself. (I leave it to you to figure out why.) So, by observation, we can provide an answer your question as to who cares: Nearly everyone on the fringe science lists.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
From Mr. Lawrence: However, I do have an observation: When a woman (or apparent woman) shows up, she gets *far* more responses to her posts than a man (or apparent man) would by posting the same sort of material. So, being a woman on the fringe lists is enough to garner an awful lot of attention, all by itself. (I leave it to you to figure out why.) For example, Nora Baron aka John Connet from the old Blacklight Power YAHOO list. Baron managed to get a lot of mileage - until she was outed. ...afterwards, John continued to get a lot of mileage, being John. Guess it just goes to say that if you really have something interesting to say, nobody really cares about gender. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Bob Park is back!
From Josh: My guess is that he knows it will irk the believers even more if he ignores Rossi, than if he dumps on him. It seems to be working. Keep guessing Joshua. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:e-cat replication by Celani
from 22pssi Celani has news of a new experiment that has been going on for a couple of weeks (I hope it details in some detail as soon as possible) to him as a very interesting results, but still in its infancy, some of his reactions has exceeded 1400 watts per gram of nickel, which is higher than that of uranium fission in the “cladding” Zirconium. Although Celani you hear talk about “technological reality”, as it has exceeded 200% yield for two weeks. Celani has worked very hard with the Japanese architect Arata great scientist. The Japanese government has funded plenty of not only the research but also those of three foreign groups who have had full access to the laboratory by Arata. Celani was able to perform various types of experiment and measurement, even the “craziest”. Arata was also excess power of 60 watts, which is easily measurable. The improvement over Fleishman and Pons was when he abandoned the traditional Arata electrode foil. In short, had to increase the surface area of contact between palladium and deuterium. When he returned to Italy Celani, modified experiments (together with Prepared) and began to use wires of nickel and hydrogen at high pressure (eliminating water, oxygen and ‘ Oxonian ) He realized that the power increased by using highly porous nickel. There Arata began to experiment with nickel of every size possible. He found that the nickel in aggregates of less than 20 nanometer you had the best reactions. Indeed, the reaction took place (although not as powerful) even at room temperature. By applying radio frequency (microwave) to dust (I did not know whether that of Smith or his), he had a massive production of gamma rays, which does not want Celani and does not consider useful. As the catalyst for him are metals such as platinum or palladium (must resist the micro-points where the heat reaches thousands of degrees, ionizing hydrogen) http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/12/roma-14-dicembre-coherence-2011-ii.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FGneRw+%28%3Cp+align%3D%22right%22%3EVentidue+passi+d%27amore+e+dintorni+++%3C%2Fp%3E%29
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Changing the acronym LENR to 'Lattice Enabled' is an improvement over 'Low Energy'- but CANR can also be altered be more relevant to the mechanics of Ni-H reactions, as best we can understand them: CANR = Casimir (or cavity) Assisted Nucleon Reactions. First, the common thread between deuterium reactions, which tend towards standard nuclear physics, and protium reactions, which do not - is the effect of cavity confinement and its aftermath. Since this kind of confined contact is not purely a Casimir effect, and seldom takes place in a real lattice, we can also call it cavity assisted to acknowledge the differences and similarities. Using nucleon instead of nuclear is another adjustment brought on by the variation away from standard nuclear physics. The term 'nucleon' is at the semantic boundary where particle physics and nuclear physics overlap; and the former emphasizes QM effects far more so than the later. In particular, tunneling, quark statistics and quantum chromodynamics are of fundamental importance to the CANR of protium. I agree with Horace that the WL theory is wrong - so completely wrong that the support of NASA hurts the credibility of NASA. It cannot be correct as it stands now (but the proponents are chameleons and it changes by the week). WL theory focuses on the weak interaction, and fails immediately because ultra cold neutrons are well-known, well studied and bear no relationship to the ULM neutron, which is an invention without even rudimentary evidence. CANR, in this altered definition, focuses on the strong force and the tunneling of protons, which CANNOT fuse with each other exothermically, but which can extract retain some of the strong force mass/energy from a close (tunneling) approach to each other. This energy transfer happens by diminishing the non-quark nucleon mass (pions, gluons, gauge bosons etc) of the proton. This is NOT fusion and is NOT fission, yet it involves nuclear mass redistribution. Obviously it does not depend on the fiction of a virtual neutron. CANR in the guise of Cavity Assisted Nucleon Reactions focuses on QM, and the relativistic effects of close confinement, and the fundamental properties of quarks and nuclear boson which provide the strong interaction. Nucleons are each made of three quarks bound together by the strong interaction - but the actual mass of protons, as we detect it in experiment is an average and is not fixed - with a range in either direction which is amenable to extraction via the strong force diminishment (probably less than one percent is available). For instance the mass of a proton can vary within a narrow range around 938 MeV, and since the three quarks account for a part of that mass - less than half, depending on who you believe, the non-quark mass is substantial to the extent that there is a surplus, some of which is extractable and it shows up as acceleration of two protons from each other when they have approached within the limits of the strong force but cannot bind. Part of the idiocy of the CENR money pit (bogosity chasing bosons) is that they want to spend enormous sums of taxpayer dollars on an imaginary particle when they cannot even quantify known particles to acceptable limits. Jones -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa What about LENR - Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions? Personally I Like it more than Low Energy. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:e-cat replication by Celani
Good find. The Googleese is a bit hard to understand, was an extra bit at the end too where Celani says Dekaflion have now far surpassed Rossi. My minor edits to translation: According to Celani the reaction between Ni and H would be catalyzed by PHONONS http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonone . The phonons are not particles but the points where it contacts the thermal-electromagnetic waves in phase, produced by thermal agitation in the lattice of nickel. Are points of summation of multiple heat waves produced by a variety of nickel atoms that vibrate at the same frequency ... these frequencies would provide hydrogen (as HYDRIDES?) the ability to overcome the Coulomb barrierhttp://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriera_di_Coulomb and make the merger of its proton to the core of nickel (as I understand it). [Editor's note. I'm asking Celani verification of this and other points of his speech] The power density is very high, and some of his reactions Celani has exceeded 1400 watts per gram of nickel, which is higher than that of uranium fission in the cladding Zirconium.Although Celani you hear talk about technological reality, as it has exceeded 200% yield (ie COP=2) for two weeks. Celani has worked very hard with the great Japanese scientist Arata. The Japanese government has funded plenty of not only the research but also those of three foreign groups who have had full access to the laboratory by Arata. Celani was able to perform various types of experiment and measurement, even the craziest. Among these groups was that of MIT and INFN (Italian national institute of Nuclear Physics; Celani et al). Worked with the Arata DEUTERIUM ... but as the import and production of Deuterium prohibited by the peace agreements had to self-refine it with the sulfur-iodine cycle http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclo_zolfo-iodio . Arata was also excess power of 60 watts, which is easily measurable. The improvement over Fleishman and Pons was when he abandoned the traditional Arata electrode foil. Not only that, the best layers were not perfectly flat, shiny but rather rough, porous, etc.. In short, had to increase the surface area of contact between palladium and deuterium. When he returned to Italy, Celani modified experiments (prepared alongside) and began to use wires of nickel and hydrogen at high pressure (eliminating water, oxygen and ' Oxonian http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ossonio/ ) He realized that the power increased by using highly porous nickel. He returned to Japan. There Arata began to experiment with nickel of every size possible. He found that the nickel nanopowder in aggregates of less than 20 Ångström you had the best reactions. Indeed, the reaction took place (although not as powerful) even at room temperature. As for gammas they are an end product of the reaction, not desired by Celani, that you can do without. By applying radio frequency (microwave) to dust (I did not know whether that of Rossi or his), he had a massive production of gamma rays, which Celani does not want and does not consider useful. As the catalyst for him are metals such as platinum or palladium (must resist the micro-points where the heat reaches thousands of degrees, ionizing hydrogen) Celani comes to scientific reality PROCESS. Celani says that the Greeks of today have passed Defaklion Rossi, from the technological point of view. [Editor's note. others believe that Defkalion has put together a nice frame and a beautiful body ... but do not have the engine]. He says that this attitude of secrecy is stupid [ed. Celani is understandably affected by a) not being invited to the demonstration of 28 October and 2) the negative response to the proposal of Rossi independent testing under the aegis of INFN], and in the end, continue along this road will not have the triumph of science and industrial deserves it. According to Celani, Rossi arrives to yield around 600%. On 16 December 2011 15:43, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.comwrote: from 22pssi Celani has news of a new experiment that has been going on for a couple of weeks (I hope it details in some detail as soon as possible) to him as a very interesting results, but still in its infancy, some of his reactions has exceeded 1400 watts per gram of nickel, which is higher than that of uranium fission in the “cladding” Zirconium. Although Celani you hear talk about “technological reality”, as it has exceeded 200% yield for two weeks. Celani has worked very hard with the Japanese architect Arata great scientist. The Japanese government has funded plenty of not only the research but also those of three foreign groups who have had full access to the laboratory by Arata. Celani was able to perform various types of experiment and measurement, even the “craziest”. Arata was also excess power of 60 watts, which is easily measurable. The improvement over Fleishman and Pons was when he abandoned the traditional Arata electrode foil. In short, had to
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T-Shirt for sale at Zazzle.com
Uhhun. Reminds me of Steorn's T-shirts. Sean McCarthy wore them at demos. One read COE vs CEO. I found a cartoon showing the infamous shirt: http://i.imgur.com/zKDlK.jpg Once again, Rossi's story is like a well known scammer's. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That's hysterical. I would get one if he were not flipping the bird. I don't like vulgarity. - Jed
[Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Exciting times. If these Celani replications are accurate, and MIT has been witnessing Arata's excess heat, then expect a peer-reviewed paper from someone in the near future. If the patent work gets muddled due to decades of work by too many players, the courts may have their hands full for sometime. Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding. So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? Do Fleichmann and Ponns recapture the headlines purely for vindication? Do Focardi and Piantelli get the credit for the original Ni-H work and patents? Do Arata or Mills get credit based on more robust patents? Does Rossi get credit for the idea to use of nanoparticles? (Even if his current incarnation of the E-Cat proves to be a kludgy fraud, the nano-nickel was a good idea) Does Defkalion get credit for providing their radio frequency generator, and having a better-engineered product? I ask this, because the VAST majority of laymen only know of Cold Fusion, what the media told them in 1989/1990. The VAST majority of laymen have never heard the term LENR. The winners and losers during such a revelation may be those with the best PR team and spokesmen.
RE: [Vo]:E-cat impact
From: Susan Gipp Axil: I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Are M.Y. two people ? Mary - y (=and) - Ugo ? Hmmm ... Out of curiosity - did Ugo Fano (RIP) have a son? - or are you just speculating about naming possibilities... Come to think of it - the Fano effect and his characteristic spike (which portends gain) could easily be relevant to the Rossi device. This is especially true with RF input. As Wiki-the-magnificent sez: The Fano resonance line-shape is due to interference between two scattering amplitudes, one due to scattering within a continuum of states (the background process) and the second due to a excitation of a discrete state (the resonant process). The energy of the resonant state must lie in the energy range of the continuum (background) states for the effect to occur. END For instance, in the Rossi/DGT devices, one scattering amplitude would be the blackbody emission in the THz range and the other would be RF in the GHz. As of today's postings, it seems the Fano effect would probably apply to Celani as well. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It's very difficult in the case of acupuncture to do blank controls; you know when someone sticks a needle in you. Yes, which makes testing sticking needles in you very difficult to test. But traditional Chinese medicine acupuncture is much more than sticking needles. The claim is that sticking the needles in *very specific places* with fancy names is important to the end result. It's simple to design a control experiment in which one set of acupuncture points is in accord with the Chinese tradition and another set of points is not. The person who sticks in the needles is simply trained to do it correctly and to follow directions on where to place them. The individual scoring the result is a third party. The experiment is thus slickly double blind. When you do that, there is no statistical difference in choosing traditional spots vs random spots for the needles. Experimental design and proper, blinding, controls and calibrations are everything in science. Someone should confront Rossi with that fact every time he pipes up with a new claim or demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** As it happens, once breast cancer has metastasized into the bones it's considered stage 4, incurable by conventional means, so she may not have missed much by failing to have it properly diagnosed... It used to be that way but now there are many effective therapies for advanced breast cancer. They add years of comfortable life to many lives and it is important to start them as soon as possible. I think that chiropractor should have been arrested for manslaughter or at least assault, after the woman died. Similarly chiropractors have vigorously manipulated necks they thought were sprained but were in reality fractured resulting in paralysis. Those cases make it to the malpractice courts from time to time. Conventional physicians make mistakes to but at least they don't rely mainly on totally bogus premises from a previous century to treat their patients. Your example is also classical of the dangers of using chiropractors to diagnose and treat disease. Most simply have no clue how to do that. It's difficult enough to do after going to medical school and residency.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Robert * Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding. So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills' theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO - not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried nanometric nickel - which was Rossi's main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on 'nano' too. Rossi does not even get credit for the nano since Mills used Raney nickel - by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:e-cat replication by Celani
On 2011-12-16 16:43, David ledin wrote: some of his reactions has exceeded 1400 watts per gram of nickel, which is higher than that of uranium fission in the “cladding” Zirconium. Although Celani you hear talk about “technological reality”, as it has exceeded 200% yield for two weeks. Well, this alone would be great news, if independently verified and replicated (particularly by scientists skeptic of LENR/cold fusion), and bring immediate great benefits to the entire field. By applying radio frequency (microwave) to dust (I did not know whether that of Smith or his), he had a massive production of gamma rays, which does not want Celani and does not consider useful. I disagree: they would be EXTREMELY useful as they would *clearly* indicate that nuclear reactions are occurring! Why is Celani dismissing them as some kind of annoyance? I don't get this. Aren't scientists and researchers like him struggling for acceptance on their results in the mainstream science community!? I'm astonished. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Arent there better words? I have addressed this question here before, from the point of view of linguistics. It does not matter what you call something. People will know what you mean. See Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning: Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use. This is the basis for Google's translation tools, which work better than most linguists predicted was possible. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/google_translate_will_google_s_computers_understand_languages_be.html Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. For example: A collection of files in a computer is called a folder, even though it does not fold. It is represented by a manila folder icon, even though many people have never seen an actual folder. My daughter visited my office years ago, saw a folder, and said, ah, so *that's* what the thing on the screen is. Ae call a semiconductor replacement for a hard disk a solid state disk even though: It isn't disk shaped. A hard disk is in the solid state too. In fission reactors, they talk about burning the fuel, even though combustion does not occur. That does not matter. No one is confused by the term, any more than they are by the expression burn rate to describe the use of start-up funds in venture capital. No one thinks the people starting a company are actually igniting piles of cash money . . . although I suppose they might have at the height of the dot-com boom. In scientific disciplines, terminology is more likely to be adjusted to reflect underlying physical reality than in other disciplines. But it often starts out wrong, or drifts into being wrong as new discoveries are made or technology changes, yet it remains in use. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
My children can buy a new MP3 album from iTunes. If they missed something on TV, they can pause the DVR and rewind. The words may eventually be elimanated, but the next generation is adopting them without care of origin. Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:43:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Arent there better words? I have addressed this question here before, from the point of view of linguistics. It does not matter what you call something. People will know what you mean. See Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning: Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use. This is the basis for Google's translation tools, which work better than most linguists predicted was possible. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/google_translate_will_google_s_computers_understand_languages_be.html Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. For example: A collection of files in a computer is called a folder, even though it does not fold. It is represented by a manila folder icon, even though many people have never seen an actual folder. My daughter visited my office years ago, saw a folder, and said, ah, so that's what the thing on the screen is. Ae call a semiconductor replacement for a hard disk a solid state disk even though: It isn't disk shaped. A hard disk is in the solid state too. In fission reactors, they talk about burning the fuel, even though combustion does not occur. That does not matter. No one is confused by the term, any more than they are by the expression burn rate to describe the use of start-up funds in venture capital. No one thinks the people starting a company are actually igniting piles of cash money . . . although I suppose they might have at the height of the dot-com boom. In scientific disciplines, terminology is more likely to be adjusted to reflect underlying physical reality than in other disciplines. But it often starts out wrong, or drifts into being wrong as new discoveries are made or technology changes, yet it remains in use. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:e-cat replication by Celani
That was report from a layman. Gamma rays are bad for most people. 2011/12/16 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2011-12-16 16:43, David ledin wrote: some of his reactions has exceeded 1400 watts per gram of nickel, which is higher than that of uranium fission in the “cladding” Zirconium. Although Celani you hear talk about “technological reality”, as it has exceeded 200% yield for two weeks. Well, this alone would be great news, if independently verified and replicated (particularly by scientists skeptic of LENR/cold fusion), and bring immediate great benefits to the entire field. By applying radio frequency (microwave) to dust (I did not know whether that of Smith or his), he had a massive production of gamma rays, which does not want Celani and does not consider useful. I disagree: they would be EXTREMELY useful as they would *clearly* indicate that nuclear reactions are occurring! Why is Celani dismissing them as some kind of annoyance? I don't get this. Aren't scientists and researchers like him struggling for acceptance on their results in the mainstream science community!? I'm astonished. Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:e-cat replication by Celani
At 09:06 AM 12/16/2011, Robert Lynn wrote: Celani says that the Greeks of today have passed Defaklion Rossi, from the technological point of view. [Editor's note. others believe that Defkalion has put together a nice frame and a beautiful body ... but do not have the engine]. Celani's table (in the zip file) lists Rossi as having a GAIN=600% and Defkalion=2500% -- but these are straight from their specifications. I couldn't see anything in Passi22's report or Celani's slides that Defkalion's figure had been verified by anyone.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. Nice broad brush indictment which is mostly wrong. Consider Jonas Salk as an example -- he gave the world the Salk polio vaccine without royalties and without a patent. He is noteworthy because he did this. If scientists routinely did that, no one would remember Salk for having done it. So my indictment is mostly right. Of course there are exceptions. . . . you get complex coordinate graphs with unclear labels done by poorly specified methods and not replicated by independent others. At least that's most of what I've seen before I stopped reading. Normally I encourage people keep reading when they encounter difficulties and are confused, but in your case perhaps it was best to stop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Normally I encourage people keep reading when they encounter difficulties and are confused, but in your case perhaps it was best to stop. Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. A single clear one and another replicating it would do just fine. So would a properly conducted demonstration. Instead we get the bizarre dog and pony shows the Rossi crowd has done and the extravagant but so far totally empty promises from Defkalion.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Good point. That was an important device. ** ** Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills . . . I think that is putting it too strongly. Rossi deserves a great deal of credit for applying Arata's technique to the system. He probably added many of his own ideas. I do not know the extent of his contribution because it is still largely secret. There is no doubt he is the first to achieve kilowatt-level stable reactions. I've often said this is only a matter of engineering but I am being facetious. It is a major accomplishment. Nobel worthy. Like discovering integrated circuits. Cold fusion deserves a couple dozen Nobel prizes for various contributions. Certainly Arata deserves one. Fleischmann and Pons deserve at least two each, for physics and chemistry, plus one for putting up with nitwits. They should give me one in that category. As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor . . . How do you figure that? Are you saying that there is a great deal more surface area in nanoparticle material? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Jed: ... Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. ... This is why many (myself included) have felt that recent attempts, such as those launched from the Krivit and the Widom Larsen camp, in attempts to cast dispersions on the phrase cold fusion, and most particularly the FUSION word in cold fusion have been petty, counterproductive, and in my opinion, politically motivated. It strikes me as nothing more than a ideological motivated product placement war. Anyone who has studied the field for the past 2 decades knows the CF phrase is nothing more than a placeholder. Meanwhile, everyone else who hasn't studied the field will more likely end up becoming confused. Sometimes, I find myself speculating that THAT is precisely what Krivit and WL hope will happen. It strikes me as an attempt to conquer and divide the ignorant by getting them into their ideological camp, before they know any better. I suspect such tactics will not work. The irony is the fact that even after the process is better understood, it is likely that the cold fusion phrase will continue to be used to describe the process, as perceived within in the poplar culture. It will linger on in the vocabulary for decades, if not longer. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Celani report - Journalistic ERROR
WHOA ! Looks like the Celani report is in error. A reporter is in hot water. Essentially most of it is invented. There will be a retraction soon.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Robert: The words may eventually be elimanated, but the next generation is adopting them without care of origin. But our generation is just as guilty of committing the same type of crimes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
What happened to these men and their device? How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? On Dec 16, 2011, at 13:15, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Robert Ø Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding… So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried “nanometric” nickel – which was Rossi’s main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on ‘nano’ too. Rossi does not even get credit for the “nano” since Mills used Raney nickel – by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would *never*dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: What happened to these men and their device? I do not know what happened to those people. I lost track of them years ago. How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Well, those devices were far from being practical. They needed a lot of work. I think Gernert et al. would agree. Anyway, functional reactors broadly based on these principles are being made by Rossi and Defkalion, and perhaps by Focardi. Incidentally, the Thermacore report is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf I do not have the patent. You can find patents fairly easily these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would *never*dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. I make a sharp distinction between papers which involve cold fusion theory which I have no idea about and am not going to challenge and those which report calorimetry results which I *do* know about and can evaluate. I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. I do not dimiss discoveries because I don't understand the papers unless I've worked in the field under discussion and *still* don't understand the papers. Otherwise, I look for proper replication with suitable controls and calibrations -- all are lacking in the Rossi/Defkalion story. Take for example the neutrino faster than light story. I find it interesting and amusing but I am not about to chime in on it-- I have no way of evaluating the claims for myself so I read the various experts and chuckle a bit about the interesting controversy. But I fully understand what Rossi and Defkalion should do -- I could do the experiments myself. And they have done nothing conclusive to prove that their device is real and they repeatedly declined offers of help from friendly sources to do it right. That I understand and it's not encouraging.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: What happened to these men and their device? I do not know what happened to those people. I lost track of them years ago. Really? You found a genuine, proven, properly documented cold fusion related project that worked and lost track of them? I used to have a platinum mine run by unicorns. Unfortunately, I lost track of that also. How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Well, those devices were far from being practical. They needed a lot of work. I think Gernert et al. would agree. Doesn't matter -- if these devices really did what they were said to, there'd be Nobel prizes all around already -- Thermacore was doing this stuff in 1994! Anyway, functional reactors broadly based on these principles are being made by Rossi and Defkalion, and perhaps by Focardi. There is no conclusive evidence that Rossi has accomplished anything except potentially deceptive demonstrations and Defkalion's evidence is absolutely nothing at all! And you're relying on those? Incidentally, the Thermacore report is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf From that report:The average power was 57 W ± 26 W. Sorry. Not conclusive. Giant error band compared to output power data. Has it ever been replicated? Refined? Improved? The run I saw by browsing the paper briefly was five hours. Any longer ones properly documented? Isn't this sort of vague and inconclusive bottom line usually what so-called cold fusion and related papers always seem to produce?
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Simple, in the context of the time period. Old Hi-tech company (Thermacore) sells out to large International Conglomerate (Modine). New owner downsizes to pay for the acquisition. First thing to go is RD that is too far away from being a profit center. RD is consolidated at new owner’s facility. Inventors at Old company are encouraged into early retirement. Crude oil is selling at $15 barrel – 600% less than today. High grade coal is $20/ton. As for paying lip-service to ecology: natural gas is also cheaper. In short, new owners have a short research horizon, demand immediate profit, and “cold fusion” is in the highest disrepute in Science circles. (Not to mention the other RD staff wants to keep their jobs, and are saying that it will take too long to commercialize this). It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. From: Charles Hope What happened to these men and their device? How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Robert * Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding… So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried “nanometric” nickel – which was Rossi’s main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on ‘nano’ too. Rossi does not even get credit for the “nano” since Mills used Raney nickel – by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP ** ** It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
I regard efforts to change the name cold fusion as attempts to create a euphemism. Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. Here is what I wrote about this, in my review of Beaudette's book: Beaudette thinks the early history of cold fusion soured the field and shaped events. He regrets the cold fusion got off on the wrong foot with the University of Utah press conference. He thinks the name cold fusion is a misnomer which has confused the issue. Storms and others have coined new names like LENR partly to escape from the stigma of the original one. A new name would be a euphemism. The stigma associated with the original word will soon attach to the new one. The 1989 introduction could have been done with more finesse, but I doubt it would have made much difference. Beaudette knows that some level of controversy was unavoidable: Revolutions . . . always hit hard and they hurt. The notion that somehow -- if only things were handled better -- the deep divisions could have been avoided is not a realistic sentiment. Beaudette does not discuss what I consider the key factor in generating and prolonging the conflict: money. I did not think this originally, but Szpak, Hagelstein and others with long experience in academic science convinced me that is the key issue. The only issue, really. Scientists are not opposed to new ideas any more than programmers or restaurant owners are. The only thing they care about is how the new idea affects their pocketbook. People often say that scientists are conservative and they oppose ideas that appear to violate theory. As far as I can tell, the only people who get upset about a theory are those who specialize in that particular theory. The others do not care. When you ask a scientist about a theory in some other branch he likely to say 'that is a bunch of ad hoc guesses cobbled together, and you can't take theory seriously anyway.' Asked about his own theory and he will tell you it is unquestionably true. Anyway, if you come up with a few million dollars in grant money, 99% of scientists will instantly throw away whatever beliefs and theories they subscribe to, and rally around whatever cockamamie research topic you have come up with. When cold fusion was first announced, Tom Passell of EPRI says that many scientists publicly denounced it, while in private they were frantically applying to EPRI for research grants to study it. They did not actually oppose it. Probably they had no strong feeling either way. There were only denouncing it to keep others from applying for a grant. It was a ploy. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be unethical, backbiting scoundrels, like stockbrokers. They claim they are held accountable by peer-review and so on but that is not true. They can make gross errors and no one catches them or even cares. Plagiarism is endemic. Peer review and funding mechanisms would be considered a gross violation of antitrust laws in any other line of work. Imagine how things would be if you let IBM decide what products a startup company will be allowed to develop! Academic institutions and practices encourage irresponsibility and reward bad actors. People such as farmers and programmers have to produce real world results. That tends to keep them more honest. It is no wonder science has been stagnating for decades, as Chris Tinsley pointed out. - Jed
[Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would _never_ dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. They describe, in detail, everything they did in the course of trying to get a clear, solid result. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) The process was excruciating; it's hard even to read about it -- calibration was difficult on this run; when we disassembled the cell we found the electrolyte had leaked through the gasket into the bathwater..., lots of that sort of thing. (And these are ballpark hundred-hour runs they're talking about: in a sentence or two, they describe a couple weeks of work going down the drain due to failure of one of the hundred or so custom made parts in a cell.) They documented what went wrong, as well as what went right, and when they got a good result they tried hard to find an artifact which could account for it, rather than just taking it at face value... And their positive results were obtained with such difficulty, after identifying and avoiding so many pitfalls, that it's not even slightly surprising that there weren't six labs out there replicating right after the report came out. McCubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? That is not a likely reason because it is factually wrong. They published additional papers showing progress. I suggest you stop speculating and do your homework. Read what happened. Learn. Find out. Stop babbling about subjects you know nothing about. You make yourself look silly, and you are annoying. Keep doing that, and most people will block your posts. This is not a forum for unfounded speculation. The Internet gives access to huge amounts of information, so please avail yourself of it. I was not aware of the history related by Beene, but it sounds plausible. Such developments cannot be analyzed by appealing to Occam's Razor. Corporate decisions and policies are often Byzantine. They are inexplicable. Not subject to the rules of logic or science. I note that elsewhere you again claim that cold fusion replicated by Thermacore might have resulted in a Nobel Prize. People who say that know nothing about academic politics and nothing about what happens to cold fusion researchers who announce positive results. They are not given Nobel prizes. They are harassed, denounced in the mass media, defunded, demoted and fired. If they work for the government, and Robert Park finds out about them, their career will be over. He told a cheering crowd of people at the APS that he and his friends will root out and fire anyone who so much as *talks about* cold fusion. He meant that. He did that. He will keep doing that until he dies. That is why no one does cold fusion research. Like many subjects, cold fusion is extremely unpopular because of academic politics. People who try to study such subjects are given the frozen boot (as they say in Russia). Please try to understand this is the real world, not a Walt Disney movie. This is about money and power. People do not hand over money and power. You have to destroy them to get it. If you fail to destroy them, they will destroy you. No one in academia gives a fart about whether cold fusion is real or not, or whether it might be a useful source of energy, or whether it violates theory. That stuff never crossed their minds. The only question they ever considered is: What is in this for me? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:46:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I regard efforts to change the name cold fusion as attempts to create a euphemism. Euphemisms never work. Whatever bothers people about the old word soon attaches to the new word, so you end up generating word after word. For example: toilet, bathroom, men's room, restroom, etc. Here is what I wrote about this, in my review of Beaudette's book: Beaudette thinks the early history of cold fusion soured the field and shaped events. He regrets the cold fusion got off on the wrong foot with the University of Utah press conference. He thinks the name cold fusion is a misnomer which has confused the issue. Storms and others have coined new names like LENR partly to escape from the stigma of the original one. A new name would be a euphemism. The stigma associated with the original word will soon attach to the new one. The 1989 introduction could have been done with more finesse, but I doubt it would have made much difference. Beaudette knows that some level of controversy was unavoidable: Revolutions . . . always hit hard and they hurt. The notion that somehow -- if only things were handled better -- the deep divisions could have been avoided is not a realistic sentiment. Beaudette does not discuss what I consider the key factor in generating and prolonging the conflict: money. I did not think this originally, but Szpak, Hagelstein and others with long experience in academic science convinced me that is the key issue. The only issue, really. Scientists are not opposed to new ideas any more than programmers or restaurant owners are. The only thing they care about is how the new idea affects their pocketbook. People often say that scientists are conservative and they oppose ideas that appear to violate theory. As far as I can tell, the only people who get upset about a theory are those who specialize in that particular theory. The others do not care. When you ask a scientist about a theory in some other branch he likely to say 'that is a bunch of ad hoc guesses cobbled together, and you can't take theory seriously anyway.' Asked about his own theory and he will tell you it is unquestionably true. Anyway, if you come up with a few million dollars in grant money, 99% of scientists will instantly throw away whatever beliefs and theories they subscribe to, and rally around whatever cockamamie research topic you have come up with. When cold fusion was first announced, Tom Passell of EPRI says that many scientists publicly denounced it, while in private they were frantically applying to EPRI for research grants to study it. They did not actually oppose it. Probably they had no strong feeling either way. There were only denouncing it to keep others from applying for a grant. It was a ploy. In my experience, academic scientists tend to be unethical, backbiting scoundrels, like stockbrokers. They claim they are held accountable by peer-review and so on but that is not true. They can make gross errors and no one catches them or even cares. Plagiarism is endemic. Peer review and funding mechanisms would be considered a gross violation of antitrust laws in any other line of work. Imagine how things would be if you let IBM decide what products a startup company will be allowed to develop! Academic institutions and practices encourage irresponsibility and reward bad actors. People such as farmers and programmers have to produce real world results. That tends to keep them more honest. It is no wonder science has been stagnating for decades, as Chris Tinsley pointed out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Jones, did you read that paper before citing it? It's not a successful replication. Quote from the abstract: The apparent excess heat can not be readily explained either in terms of nonlinearity of the cell's thermal conductance a low temperature differential or by thermoelectric heat pumping. However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. They ran *one* active cell, and got ambiguous results. Contrast the original study, in which they ran dozens of cells, and found excess heat in about 1/5 of them. A replication with just one active cell would not be expected to see excess heat -- and, indeed, they probably didn't. On 11-12-16 04:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record-- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf *From:*Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Note, by the way, that the original (hard copy) paper came with a data disk in a pocket in the back cover, with all their raw data. Now THAT is the way to publish research! Unfortunately the PDF doesn't include the CD. On 11-12-16 04:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would _never_ dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. They describe, in detail, everything they did in the course of trying to get a clear, solid result. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) The process was excruciating; it's hard even to read about it -- calibration was difficult on this run; when we disassembled the cell we found the electrolyte had leaked through the gasket into the bathwater..., lots of that sort of thing. (And these are ballpark hundred-hour runs they're talking about: in a sentence or two, they describe a couple weeks of work going down the drain due to failure of one of the hundred or so custom made parts in a cell.) They documented what went wrong, as well as what went right, and when they got a good result they tried hard to find an artifact which could account for it, rather than just taking it at face value... And their positive results were obtained with such difficulty, after identifying and avoiding so many pitfalls, that it's not even slightly surprising that there weren't six labs out there replicating right after the report came out. McCubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker . . . A direct link: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIdevelopmen.pdf It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. Yup. This is one of the best descriptions of research I know of, in any field. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) That seems likely to me, but sometimes with a lot of money you can make touchy technology robust. Semiconductors and color televisions, for example. McKubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly. They are indeed polar opposites. But bear in mind that McKubre is impressed by Rossi. Because he knows an expert who attended some of the tests, he is convinced that Rossi's results are real. He thinks that Rossi is deliberately obfuscating his results for business reasons. I agree that is likely. It is also Rossi's nature to obfuscate things. There have been many superb scientists and engineers like that. Arata is an example. As I've pointed out before, Harrison, who invented the chronometer, was one of the best examples. Perhaps he had to be this way. What he was trying to accomplish was inherently complicated. It was a tremendous challenge given the tools of the day. The only way to do it was to use indirect means and convoluted methods. It was similar to making a supercomputer in the 1950s and 60s. His personality happened to be an ideal fit to this problem. He took decades and he never did it the easy way when some clever but difficult method was available. His love of intricacy and complexity also meant he had difficulty communicating with others, and simplifying the design. Other people simplified the design, and made the thing practical, as he himself recognized. (See: http://www.rmg.co.uk/harrison http://www.rmg.co.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.2757 Harrison's friend reduced this design to practice in the form of a pocket watch! He gave the watch to Harrison.) Convoluted techniques were common in computer programming in the 1970s because of hardware limitations such as 4 kB RAM. There were programmers who loved the challenge and came up with ingenious methods of overcoming these limits. Their programs were difficult to understand and impossible to maintain, yet they were works of genius. (By the way, I did not love the challenge of making programs work in 4 kB, but I did meet it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No it is not “more likely” - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. ** ** Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record– especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park’s refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. ** ** Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Sure. I am going to read 1000+ papers. Very reasonable. Here is NASA’s replication of Thermacore’s wet cell work ** ** http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From that paper: The apparent energy evolved in the present experiments was inadequate to eliminate chemical reactions - runs too short for the power observed. However, this possibility has been examined and rejected by other workers operating very similar cells at 50 W apparent excess heat for months. Oh. OK I guess. And THAT was in 1996! Runs too short?? Looks like the same thing Rossi did. Someone needed to break for dinner or to pick up the kids? You're going to have to do better if you want to convince any non-dreamers.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Stephen, Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. Here is the conclusion: Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68. How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? When is Considering the large magnitude of benefit if this effect is found to be a genuine new energy source, a more thorough investigation of evolved heat in the nickel-hydrogen system in both electrolytic and gaseous loading cells remains warranted. .not an endorsement? I think you failed to see that even though they put in the usual 'escape clause' (after all this is NASA and we are dealing with fundamental NEW PHYSICS) that they are completely clear that they have demonstrated a prima facie case for a genuine new energy source. They sought additional funding. Politics intervened and they did not get it. Jones From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones, did you read that paper before citing it? It's not a successful replication. Quote from the abstract: The apparent excess heat can not be readily explained either in terms of nonlinearity of the cell's thermal conductance a low temperature differential or by thermoelectric heat pumping. However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. They ran *one* active cell, and got ambiguous results. Contrast the original study, in which they ran dozens of cells, and found excess heat in about 1/5 of them. A replication with just one active cell would not be expected to see excess heat -- and, indeed, they probably didn't. On 11-12-16 04:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Global warming to climate change? I believe that was a technical adjustment to make the term more accurate. Not a euphemism. CO2 causes both warming and cooling, and also droughts and other effects. It is not limited to warming. This change did not do what you suggest. It did not change perception. The topic is as controversial as it ever was. Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? These topics are also still politicized. They are still controversial. Changing the name did not help. You have illustrated why euphemisms do not work. Actually, euphemism usually means the word is intended to avoid embarrassment or social awkwardness. Victorians invented words for sex, and we invent words for death. There is probably some other word for changing the name to avoid controversy. Not sure what . . . The New Scientist referred to the use of new hydrogen energy meaning cold fusion as a euphemism. That was the Japanese NEDO agency's word. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
From Robert: There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues being championed out of the original phrase. But getting back to cold fusion, the question is whether someone (or some group) is attempting to water down the phrase cold fusion, such as by calling it a nuclear effect. In my view it is debatable whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political front. I think not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Mary Yugo wrote: Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Sure. I am going to read 1000+ papers. Very reasonable. There is a remarkable internet utility available called Google. You will find a link to it at the top of the front page at LENR-CANR.org. Try it! Stop being such a pill. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Jed sez: ... (By the way, I did not love the challenge of making programs work in 4 kB, but I did meet it.) Back in the 70's I was hired by the State of Wisconsin to work on an IBM 360 Model 20, with 32k of memory. This was a mainframe computer. I was in charge of the edit check program that processed State Income Tax returns after they had been keyed onto tape. Every time my user would stop by and ask for a modification to the edit check program I had to determine whether there were enough free bytes left in memory in order to do what they wanted me to do. The program was written in BAS, Basic Assembler Language. Near the end I was down to around 20 free bytes of memory. If you want me to do that, what do you want me to take out? I feel your pain. Those were the days. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
He who controls the language controls the argument. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. The change in name can have the largest effect on those new to the fray. So, if the Ni-H interaction renamed: Low-Impact Quantum Energy LIQE (pronounced:Like) Who could oppose it. I firmly support Low Impact Quantum Energy. I can see the campaign buttons now, I LIKE LIQE! Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:50:31 -0600 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view. From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From Robert: There is a huge industry of focus-group research that would vehemently disagree. Changing terminologies can entirely restructure a debate, and affect changes in perception: Global warming to climate change? Pro-choice to women's health? Gay marriage to marriage equality? In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. There is considerable evidence that indicates that in many cases the objective of these focus groups was to water down, or obfuscate, the issues being championed out of the original phrase. But getting back to cold fusion, the question is whether someone (or some group) is attempting to water down the phrase cold fusion, such as by calling it a nuclear effect. In my view it is debatable whether such efforts will net them an advantage on the political front. I think not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: In all three examples you cite I personally find it interesting that the politically correct replacement phrase being championed strikes me as being far less descriptive than the original phrase. I disagree about climate change. That is a better description. I think it is helpful. It educates the public.It helps correct the notion that CO2 only produces higher temperatures, and not more extreme weather including colder temperatures. I doubt that LENR or the other proposed replacements for cold fusion would enlighten the public or correct misinformation. Even if cold fusion succeeds, I do not think the public will ever know or care what cold fusion is at the theoretical level. The name will not matter. For that matter, most people do not understand that fire involves oxygen, but fission does not. People generally are ignorant. They are as ignorant in Japan as in the U.S. Ordinary folks know only a little more about physics than they did in 1600. They have far less practical hands-on knowledge, because modern life is so divorced from nature. People have always have been ignorant and they always will be. This seldom matters. The only time it bothers me is when people try to replace biology with creationism in public schools. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On 11-12-16 04:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen, Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. Here is the conclusion: *Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess* *heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells* *was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W* *maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power* *gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68.* ** *How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? * Go back and read what it says, not what you wish it said. They said it, right there in the abstract: They couldn't rule out in-cell recombo as the source of the excess heat. In other words, the excess was a book-keeping result which came from adding the calculated energy lost to electrolyzed gas to the measured heat output. It was not an actual, measured, excess. That's suggestive but it's not conclusive, and as such it doesn't replicate, and barely supports, McCubre's results, which were far more solid all by themselves. Why do you think they used the term *apparent* excess heat?
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: He who controls the language controls the argument. No one controls language. The French Academy wishes it did, but it does not. This is one of the fundamentals of linguistics. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. But it did not work! The nature of the dispute has not been changed. Not for climate change, or abortion, or gay marriage. Opposition is as strong as it ever was. Why do you say this has been effective, when it has not? You are right that these changes were made in an effort to influence the agenda. They failed. The changes did not even take. Most people still call it global warming. Opponents do. As I said, no one controls language. At least, no one has controlled it up to now. Perhaps . . . Google does. (Cue ominous music.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism Regarding Google's power, see The Googling series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE - Jed
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be sure to get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument of Lawrence and Yugo . that belittles an LENR experiment which was only successful one time in ten, or produced only 68% gain at most. GET REAL . these are fundamental Laws of Physics under scrutiny. A fundamental Laws of Physics that is wrong one time in a million - is in fact wrong forever and in fact NOT fundamental at all. Hundreds of thousands of physicist will share in that agony, and they do not want to see this happen. Therefore, any paper from NASA in 1996 is going to be circumspect about ultimate possibilities. However look at it another way. An experiment that produces clean excess energy of only 68% over input, or that does it only one time in a thousand - is in fact the most important invention in the history of science ! . since, if and when we discover the precise circumstances and theory which led to the rare anomaly, and then put it into the system (turn it over to the product engineers) . then what was formerly a freak occurrence, but a proven freak, suddenly becomes the standard method. The Yugo-esque mentality of years past, firmly pronounced that quantum tunneling was either an observational error, or a freak exception of extremely low probability that will stay in the lab. Fast forward three decades and the same pompous skeptical mentality using computers that performs several trillion impossible quantum tunneling operations per second via their CPU. So much for the bogosity of only one proved success in ten tries (or 10,000) in an early trial. The one proved success, even if it is one in many - represents the metaphorical straw . you know, the one that broke the camel's back. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Cold Fusion from a critical logical point of view.
Robert sez: He who controls the language controls the argument. The examples I'd provided were all to demonstrate the utility of changing the terminology. You will not immediately remove stigma, but can restructure the entire nature of the dispute. The change in name can have the largest effect on those new to the fray. So, if the Ni-H interaction renamed: Low-Impact Quantum Energy LIQE (pronounced:Like) Who could oppose it. I agree, especially about the part about newcomers. I firmly support Low Impact Quantum Energy. I can see the campaign buttons now, I LIKE LIQE! Stop while you still can. You are dating yourself! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
Am 16.12.2011 21:59, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc It is interesting and looks very convincing. However, it is unclear to me how performant this is. For example they measure neutrons. So far I know the neutrons from cosmic rays are 20 neutrons /(cm^2*s) respective 72000 neutrons per hour per cm^2. There are also cosmic muons. If they measure many hours, then spurious nuclear reactions in this reactive environment should not be too surprising. These could even release more neutrons, but not enough for selfsustaining. Possibly they invented a neutron multiplier? They should try to put many of these cells close together and see if the reaction is amplificated, and the efficiency improved. Peter
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** The Yugo-esque mentality of years past, firmly pronounced that quantum tunneling was either an observational error, or a freak exception of extremely low probability that will stay in the lab. Fast forward three decades and the same pompous skeptical mentality using computers that performs several trillion “impossible” quantum tunneling operations per second via their CPU. I think I know what you meant there but I'm not sure you said it. Missing word or two maybe after skeptical mentality? Anyway, I never said anything negative about quantum tunneling. I think you're misreading my intent. I am only arguing against some people's apparent certainty regarding Rossi and Defkalion. And I am not terribly interested in cold fusion and LENR *in general*. Not yet, anyway. And I am open to the possibility that there may be something to it. It's just that nobody has yet shown me the real beef unless it's Rossi and Defkalion and we know those are arguable. I prefer to address my time to the weird phenomenon of Rossi and Defkalion and their mostly unsupported claims that so many people seem to be willing, literally, to take to the bank. That's interesting, troubling, and sometimes fun.
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
They also spoke of the excess heat being caused by efficient recombination of hydrogen atoms. efficient doesn't get you over-unity and they should have been looking at the other end of the reversible reaction where the environment was actually lowering the disassociation threshold to the point where it could be repeatedly disassociated for less supplied energy than it was releasing during recombo. As I have said before there is a fundamental misunderstanding of catalytic action, It is derived from HUP and change in Casimir force and the notion that HUP is an unexploitable energy source has an exception when large Casimir force changes value rapidly due to rapid changes in very small Casimir geometry like Rossi's tubules or the packing geometries of Ni nano powder. This rapid change in Casimir force relative to the random motion of gas inside the tapestry of the Ni boundaries is equivalent to a mechanical shaker table. Instead of a spatial axis the hydrogen is subjected to jerk in values of Casimir force. Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight Am 16.12.2011 21:59, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc It is interesting and looks very convincing. However, it is unclear to me how performant this is. For example they measure neutrons. So far I know the neutrons from cosmic rays are 20 neutrons /(cm^2*s) respective 72000 neutrons per hour per cm^2. There are also cosmic muons. If they measure many hours, then spurious nuclear reactions in this reactive environment should not be too surprising. These could even release more neutrons, but not enough for selfsustaining. Possibly they invented a neutron multiplier? They should try to put many of these cells close together and see if the reaction is amplificated, and the efficiency improved. Peter
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
From: Mary Yugo I think you're misreading my intent. I am only arguing against some people's apparent certainty regarding Rossi and Defkalion. Well, I completely agree that such certainty is both rampant - and misplaced (and sometimes silly). With one major caveat. Although Rossi has discovered a way to intensify an energy anomaly (the same one as Thermacore) I doubt that it is economically viable in his device. He went from pre-prototype to end product in a year and skipped dozens of necessary intermediate steps. He is probably two to four years away from a commercial device, minimum. To that narrow extent, it could be a secondary-scam, but IMO there is a fundamental anomaly at the base of it - so I am offended by anyone who wants to write-off the entire story off as a complete scam. * And I am not terribly interested in cold fusion and LENR *in general*. Well to be honest - that is the attitude that makes many of us oppose your negativity. We are convinced from personal experience, either in the Lab or through other research that there is something very vital here which will be the next big thing even if it takes a little longer than expected. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-16 05:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote: One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be sure to get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument of Lawrence and Yugo ... that belittles an LENR experiment which was only successful one time in ten, You didn't read, or didn't understand, what I said, nor what the researchers themselves said. And in fact McCubre's results were one cell in five, not one in ten.
[Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
Stephen A. Lawrence has been fretting about the Thermacore NASA study, which said: However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. Stop worrying about it. They published a later study in which input was I*V and output exceeded it by a large margin, easily measured. I think that was the MIT report. I am sure Jones Beene is right and this was dropped because of politics. That is always the reason. - Jed
[Vo]:Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the specific problem byproducts is manifest if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically disallowed. Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV Ni28 + 2 p* --- 2 1H1 + 0 MeV Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy. This should result in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
I should make a comment on the MIT report, mentioned by Jed ... or lack of one. Haldeman was the head of Lincoln Labs at MIT for years, which was the premiere physics Lab in the World at the time. CERN may make the claim now, but I think they are comparative bumblers. Anyway, as I understand it, Haldeman wanted to stay on after retirement as a consultant - and as a result of their deal - he could not file the complete report on Ni-H and Mills/Thermacore - due to political pressure from the Hot Fusion group, and the fact that Mallove had already exposed the recalibration fraud with the PF experiment. They did not want any more negative publicity. Here is what Tom Stolper has to say about this episode in his fine book, which everyone interested in Ni-H should put at the top of their reading list. It is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp /1419643045/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1324085375sr=8-2 Haldeman's team at MIT's Lincoln Lab verified excess power production from the old [Thermacore] cells long ago, and so did Michael Jacox at the Idaho National Engineering Lab. Those labs were, and are, as reputable as one can get. No, I never did see the replications at MIT's Lincoln Lab or at INEL, but I did speak with Haldeman and Jacox years ago, as well as another engineer at INEL. I also spoke with management at Lincoln Lab and asked for a copy of the report there but got stonewalled. At INEL, the public relations people claimed never to have heard of Mills. Haldeman was very impressed with the performance of his final cell and recommended that further studies be made, in particular studies of the newer gas-phase cells of greater power (which have since been succeeded by the plasma cells of even greater power). Jacox was also impressed, but being more junior at INEL at the time than Haldeman was at MIT, Jacox wasn't able to get as far before his managers, like the managers at the Lincoln Lab, decided that Mills' cells were too hot to handle (pun intended). Where is Tom Stolper these days anyway? He used to contribute here on Vortex, and I would love to hear his take on Rossi. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Stephen A. Lawrence has been fretting about the Thermacore NASA study, which said: However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. Stop worrying about it. They published a later study in which input was I*V and output exceeded it by a large margin, easily measured. I think that was the MIT report. I am sure Jones Beene is right and this was dropped because of politics. That is always the reason. - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is what Tom Stolper has to say about this episode in his fine book, which everyone interested in Ni-H should put at the top of their reading list. It is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp /1419643045/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1324085375sr=8-2 Out of print. No copies available. Haldeman's team at MIT's Lincoln Lab verified excess power production from the old [Thermacore] cells long ago, and so did Michael Jacox at the Idaho National Engineering Lab. Those labs were, and are, as reputable as one can get. No, I never did see the replications at MIT's Lincoln Lab or at INEL . . . Wow! That's hard hitting stuff. I confess I have not read the book, but I better get to it. Tom has a web page listed in the Amazon info section. It has a contact button and the TOC of the book: http://homepage.mac.com/tstolper/FileSharing7.html I will ask him to make the book available on Kindle. That's the way to publish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and the Star Trek Economy
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 December 2011 21:24, Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: How much government spending goes to the richest 1%? Very little, I think. This is the very problem of current socialist policy. However, if we use 99% of collected tax revenues to support purchasing power of middle class, that is we have basic income economic system. Then the most of the tax what rich are paying will return to the rich. That is because exactly 100 percent of the rich people's income is payed from the purchasing power of the middle class. Therefore we should practice economic policy that maximizes the purchasing power of middle class. With proper economic policy we can greatly expand the middle class. This means huge increase of salary for the Walmart capitalists. Because it is obvious, that no other than middle class does pay their salary. Poor people are, although numerous but still lousy customers. You just need to understand, that in basic income economy, almost all tax revenues are returned for the rich people! And also you must understand that, basic income will also abolish government as useless, because in basic income economy there are only three social classes. Middle class, rich people, and super rich people. We have no need for welfare state or free education and medicare, because everyone has plenty of money to pay for their basic needs. What they had in Star Trek, they had basic income economy. That is beyond socialism and capitalism. Because basic income economy is the only proper way to practice free market economy. Because market economy is based on purchasing power of median consumer and basic income economy will maximize the median purchasing power of median consumer. --- http://binews.org/2011/12/france-three-presidential-candidates-to-propose-basic-income/ FRANCE: Three Presidential Candidates to propose Basic Income The idea of basic income seeps slowly into the French political scene. Following former prime minister Dominique De Villepin’s announcement that he will propose a citizen income to the next presidential elections, two others candidates are preparing their own proposals. Christine Boutin still favors basic income Last week, Christine Boutin, president of the Christian Democratic Party, renewed her support for a basic income, in the move of her campaign towards the next presidential elections in 2012. She said at a meeting that she supported a “basic income” for all the French from birth to replace “the hundreds of benefits to which no one understands anything”. She claims a basic income at 400 Euros for every adult while 200 Euros would be given to children. “This is not a sacrament for idleness or a poverty trap, but an asset to escape poverty,” she added. Back in 2006, Christine Boutin was the first major political figure to propose a “universal dividend.” Very inspired by Yolland Bresson’s work, she even filed a bill at the French National Assembly (which was never debated in the end). “Key measure” of the Green Party More encouraging news is coming to us that Europe Ecologie – Les Verts (Former Green Party) is currently working on its own proposal for a basic income. According to internal sources from the Party, this will be a “key measure” of their election campaign. Eva Joly, the leader of the party who will be running the election, yet made allusions that she favors a “subsistence income”, and the basic income was already in their political platform in the last elections back in 2007 and 2009. But some doubts remained among observers, still waiting for a concrete proposal in view of the next election. Villepin under fire Meanwhile, Villepin’s proposal has been highly criticized by his opponent, arguing that the measure was “demagogic” or “unrealistic”. Even some of his own supporters were destabilized by the idea and left his movement. Other French basic income supporters heavily criticized the nature of the proposal. Indeed, while he suggests a high-valued citizen income of 850 Euros a month, this grant could not be drawn concurrently with other income. But Villepin keeps the line. On his blog he answers critics from President Sarkozy, arguing that “This so called ‘thing’ is no magic nor demagogy, this is simply citizenship.” Stanislas Jourdan – BI News --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-cat impact
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-12-16 06:07 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Following this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that MY is more likely than not a male. I would guesstimate that the odds on this speculation are 70/30 that MY is a man. Who the hell cares? I guess you haven't been around the crackpot forums much, or you haven't been paying attention to the behavior of the folks there. Nearly all members of the fringe science forums are male. (Go look around places like sci.physics.relativity if you don't believe me.) This is 'way out of proportion to the number of women in science; I don't have an explanation for the discrepancy. (Women aren't as nutty as men?) I also don't hear women complaining how they are under represented in such forums. Probably because such forums do not confer much in the way of money and status to the participants. Meanwhile, women now out number men in medical and law schools. Harry
[Vo]:Royal Dutch Shell will invest in lenr research
Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENR http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/?utm_medium=twitterutm_source=NewEnergyTimesBlog
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
What amazed me was the total lack of audience response during question time. Talk about a tough opening night. No question after data that should have raised a LOT of questions. Almost as if asking questions could have been career ending. On 12/17/2011 9:44 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: They also spoke of the excess heat being caused by efficient recombination of hydrogen atoms. efficient doesn't get you over-unity and they should have been looking at the other end of the reversible reaction where the environment was actually lowering the disassociation threshold to the point where it could be repeatedly disassociated for less supplied energy than it was releasing during recombo. As I have said before there is a fundamental misunderstanding of catalytic action, It is derived from HUP and change in Casimir force and the notion that HUP is an unexploitable energy source has an exception when large Casimir force changes value rapidly due to rapid changes in very small Casimir geometry like Rossi's tubules or the packing geometries of Ni nano powder. This rapid change in Casimir force relative to the random motion of gas inside the tapestry of the Ni boundaries is equivalent to a mechanical shaker table. Instead of a spatial axis the hydrogen is subjected to jerk in values of Casimir force. Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight Am 16.12.2011 21:59, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc It is interesting and looks very convincing. However, it is unclear to me how performant this is. For example they measure neutrons. So far I know the neutrons from cosmic rays are 20 neutrons /(cm^2*s) respective 72000 neutrons per hour per cm^2. There are also cosmic muons. If they measure many hours, then spurious nuclear reactions in this reactive environment should not be too surprising. These could even release more neutrons, but not enough for selfsustaining. Possibly they invented a neutron multiplier? They should try to put many of these cells close together and see if the reaction is amplificated, and the efficiency improved. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Acceleration Under Load
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: MY wrote: I know of no properly demonstrated violation of Lenz law. Such a violation would also violate COE and Newton 3. That's rather unlikely, at least on any macro scale for any appreciable time period -- or the universe would not be the way we see it. Are you trying to convince me or yourself that the set of axioms known as the laws of physics apply to everything that has happened or will ever happen? I am trying to convince you that new discoveries rarely if ever change current physical laws for the regimes of size, velocity, etc. in which they have been developed. For example, Newton's Laws of motion are just as good as ever as long as you don't move very extremely fast in which case Einstein's discoveries and deductions begin to apply. Or if you get very very small, quantum physics laws become more accurate than Newton's. That's what I meant. COE is fundamental to the way the universe looks and works and I don't think it will ever be overthrown. You may discover new sources of energy analogous to the discovery of radioactivity, and perhaps new possibilities for converting it but I don't think you will overthrow COE for the known universe. I am familiar with this view of physics. I was taught it and accepted it like most students. However, over the last decade I have gradually become unconvinced of this vision through my own historical research and reflection. I have learned that the conviction that quantities like momentum and energy are conserved was inspired by the theological musings of Descartes and Joule. They posited a Creator who made the universe work according to their own beliefs and values. The conservation laws aren`t really tautological, as Peter Hecket has opinoined, but they are self affirming. It is not my ambition to overthrow CoE. I have come to realize that the principle is important for the design, construction and operation of measuring instruments, but creation is greater than the theological conceits of Descartes and Joules so everything that transpires need not obey CoE. BTW I haven`t found an explicit objection to the creation of energy in Joule`s writing. He writes that energy must be conserved to avoid the destruction of energy because the destruction of energy was implied in Carnot theory of heat engines. He insisted that only God had the capacity to destroy energy. Have a nice day. Harry
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the specific problem byproducts is manifest if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically disallowed. Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p* --- 2 1H1 + 0 MeV Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy. This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy may also be obtained from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of deflated protons, without the aid of a lattice nucleus. This is of the form: p* + P* -- 2 1H1 However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than from a large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped when the protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be expected from the ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur: p + p* -- D + e+ v + 0.42 MeV These are followed immediately by: e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. The following represent energetically feasible initial strong reactions based on deflation fusion theory: Compare to 18.822 MeV: 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 * + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 * + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV] Compare to: 16.852 MeV: 60Ni28 + p* -- 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Zn30 * + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV] Compare to: 9.814 MeV 61Ni28 + p* -- 58Co27 * + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV] 61Ni28 + p* -- 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Ni28 * + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Cu29 * + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Zn30 * + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV] Compare to: 14.931 Mev 62Ni28 + p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV] Compare to: 16.378 MeV 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV] In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions exceed those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive isotopes. This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an energy only basis. The mechanism that enforces the rule is more difficult to understand. Understanding the mechanism requires understanding the initial energy deficit due to the trapped electron. This deficit is shown in brackets above. This deficit provides a limit to how far an energetically ejected electron can travel out of the coulomb well before being pulled back. If an electron is in the nucleus at the site of the initial reaction, then a large part of the energy that normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into ejecting the trapped electron. However, given that this energy is insufficient, the electron has numerous delayed passes through the nucleus in which to effect a weak reaction. The electron, when outside the nucleus and accelerating, is free to radiate large numbers of gammas in much smaller than normal energies. It is also notable that the electron energy
Re: [Vo]:Royal Dutch Shell will invest in lenr research
It would seem that SR finds himself in a precarious position, eh? T On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENR http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/?utm_medium=twitterutm_source=NewEnergyTimesBlog
Re: [Vo]:Royal Dutch Shell will invest in lenr research
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem that SR finds himself in a precarious position, eh? T On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENR http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/?utm_medium=twitterutm_source=NewEnergyTimesBlog
Re: [Vo]:Royal Dutch Shell will invest in lenr research
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:: It would seem that SR finds himself in a precarious position, eh? That should have read SK. Fat fingered. T
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. The low energy part is the fact the reactions can occur with thermal or chemical inputs, energies well below even 1 eV. The outputs of course are not necessarily low energy. Such reactions can occur in lattices, amorphic substances like metallic glasses, on surfaces, and in liquids. They can occur at very low pressure or high pressure. LENR applies to all forms of reactions where nuclei are changed with low energy inputs. Sometimes nuclear reactions induced with intermediate energies, i.e. 100 V to several kV are referred to as warm fusion, but LENR, LANR, or CMNS is used also, as applicable. Claytor's low pressure gas and filament experiments are referred to as LENR experiments, even though kV energies were used. It became clear early on that cold fusion experiments produced more than just helium. Heavy elements were transmuted in the process of many experiments. That is the reason for describing these cold fusion results with the term LENR. In some cases the byproducts are due to more than just the fusion of two nuclei. The term LENR was meant to cover these cases. Many people do not distinguish between the two terms because most everyone who has been in the field long term knows what they mean. LANR stands for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions. This is LENR in a lattice. Some theories require a lattice. Use of the term LANR is appropriate in those cases. It is not established that a lattice is required for all forms of LENR. CMNS stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions. The term applies to low energy nuclear reactions that occur in condensed matter. The terms cold fusion, LENR, LANR, and CMNS have distinct meanings that have been established for many years. The last few years there has been a tendency to bastardize the vocabulary, in some cases possibly for personal gain, in some cases just from ignorance. This is unfortunate and deserves resistance. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
MY wrote: I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. You can't fail at something that you never agreed to achieve. Rossi has said from the out-set (i.e., January 2010) that he was NOT INTERESTED in performing scientific tests and/or submitting results to peer-review. what part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? At the most, he has failed to meet YOUR requirements. so what, he also never agreed to your requirements. He leaves it up to his customers, and if they are too stupid to determine whether the E-Cat is producing the claimed energy amplification, then that's their problem. A fool and his money. or they will have a head start in what will be the most interesting race to profitability in the history of the planet! -m
RE: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
Mary: Despite the fact that you have only been following CF/LENR for a year, whereas most of the regulars on Vortex have been following it since 1989, you should at least have a clue that there are 22 years of some very revealing HISTORY behind CF/LENR, and much of it does NOT reflect well on the scientific process. You and your cohort need to take off the rose colored glasses and realize the HUMANS are doing science. With humans comes all the things that make us human, like ambition, greed, protecting your turf, jealousy, fear, envy, etc. John Bockris at Texas AM went thru three investigations which proved he and his lab didn't do anything wrong, and yet, his OWN colleagues at TAM still tried to silence him because they feared (that's a human trait) that their college/Department would get ridiculed. Even science is filled with politics and egos. Your views are way too idealistic for the real world... Ever see that movie 'Clueless'? You want the scientific process to work right all the time... yeah, don't hold your breath... maybe in a few hundred years. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination I should make a comment on the MIT report, mentioned by Jed ... or lack of one. Haldeman was the head of Lincoln Labs at MIT for years, which was the premiere physics Lab in the World at the time. CERN may make the claim now, but I think they are comparative bumblers. Anyway, as I understand it, Haldeman wanted to stay on after retirement as a consultant - and as a result of their deal - he could not file the complete report on Ni-H and Mills/Thermacore - due to political pressure from the Hot Fusion group, and the fact that Mallove had already exposed the recalibration fraud with the PF experiment. They did not want any more negative publicity. Here is what Tom Stolper has to say about this episode in his fine book, which everyone interested in Ni-H should put at the top of their reading list. It is on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp /1419643045/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1324085375sr=8-2 Haldeman's team at MIT's Lincoln Lab verified excess power production from the old [Thermacore] cells long ago, and so did Michael Jacox at the Idaho National Engineering Lab. Those labs were, and are, as reputable as one can get. No, I never did see the replications at MIT's Lincoln Lab or at INEL, but I did speak with Haldeman and Jacox years ago, as well as another engineer at INEL. I also spoke with management at Lincoln Lab and asked for a copy of the report there but got stonewalled. At INEL, the public relations people claimed never to have heard of Mills. Haldeman was very impressed with the performance of his final cell and recommended that further studies be made, in particular studies of the newer gas-phase cells of greater power (which have since been succeeded by the plasma cells of even greater power). Jacox was also impressed, but being more junior at INEL at the time than Haldeman was at MIT, Jacox wasn't able to get as far before his managers, like the managers at the Lincoln Lab, decided that Mills' cells were too hot to handle (pun intended). Where is Tom Stolper these days anyway? He used to contribute here on Vortex, and I would love to hear his take on Rossi. Jones From: Jed Rothwell Stephen A. Lawrence has been fretting about the Thermacore NASA study, which said: However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. Stop worrying about it. They published a later study in which input was I*V and output exceeded it by a large margin, easily measured. I think that was the MIT report. I am sure Jones Beene is right and this was dropped because of politics. That is always the reason. - Jed attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Twenty-Year History of Lattice-Enabled Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Hiding in Plain Sight
Horace, I feel a LOT of LENR claims (both ways) are more about Testosterone levels in Alpha Males than physics. I guess we are not that far from the cave as we would like to believe. On 12/17/2011 4:44 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. The low energy part is the fact the reactions can occur with thermal or chemical inputs, energies well below even 1 eV. The outputs of course are not necessarily low energy. Such reactions can occur in lattices, amorphic substances like metallic glasses, on surfaces, and in liquids. They can occur at very low pressure or high pressure. LENR applies to all forms of reactions where nuclei are changed with low energy inputs. Sometimes nuclear reactions induced with intermediate energies, i.e. 100 V to several kV are referred to as warm fusion, but LENR, LANR, or CMNS is used also, as applicable. Claytor's low pressure gas and filament experiments are referred to as LENR experiments, even though kV energies were used. It became clear early on that cold fusion experiments produced more than just helium. Heavy elements were transmuted in the process of many experiments. That is the reason for describing these cold fusion results with the term LENR. In some cases the byproducts are due to more than just the fusion of two nuclei. The term LENR was meant to cover these cases. Many people do not distinguish between the two terms because most everyone who has been in the field long term knows what they mean. LANR stands for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions. This is LENR in a lattice. Some theories require a lattice. Use of the term LANR is appropriate in those cases. It is not established that a lattice is required for all forms of LENR. CMNS stands for Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions. The term applies to low energy nuclear reactions that occur in condensed matter. The terms cold fusion, LENR, LANR, and CMNS have distinct meanings that have been established for many years. The last few years there has been a tendency to bastardize the vocabulary, in some cases possibly for personal gain, in some cases just from ignorance. This is unfortunate and deserves resistance. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thermacore reported heat well above recombination
Mark, as an old engineer who has seen a LOT of Jaw Dropping things and S**T, in the pit of my stomach, which I have learned to trust, LENR is very real as are the results of Leonardo. As for DGT, I await to read their publicly released test results. What is now being revealed is the high Testosterone levels in scientific Alpha Males, who have made S**T Knee Jerk decisions against LENR in the past, enjoyed the High Fives with their mates and now are facing massive back EMF forces!! On 12/17/2011 6:05 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Mary: Despite the fact that you have only been following CF/LENR for a year, whereas most of the regulars on Vortex have been following it since 1989, you should at least have a clue that there are 22 years of some very revealing HISTORY behind CF/LENR, and much of it does NOT reflect well on the scientific process. You and your cohort need to take off the rose colored glasses and realize the HUMANS are doing science. With humans comes all the things that make us human, like ambition, greed, protecting your turf, jealousy, fear, envy, etc. John Bockris at Texas AM went thru three investigations which proved he and his lab didn't do anything wrong, and yet, his OWN colleagues at TAM still tried to silence him because they feared (that's a human trait) that their college/Department would get ridiculed. Even science is filled with politics and egos. Your views are way too idealistic for the real world... Ever see that movie 'Clueless'? You want the scientific process to work right all the time... yeah, don't hold your breath... maybe in a few hundred years. -mark
