[Vo]:eskimo still down
Apparently list servers at eskimo are down. Owner Bob D. had been making major changes to spam filtering to prevent bouncing Ed and others. So, this very message vanished without a trace, right? Or are ONLY msgs from the users inside eskimo.com accepted? While waiting, go see new files: N. Tesla FAQ (some new info) http://amasci.com/tesla/teslafaq.html Tesla's secrets, what WERE they? http://amasci.com/tesla/tesecr1.html Wardenclyffe stuff http://amasci.com/tesla/wardenclyffe.html (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective's discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist's tastes. and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the 'laws' of physics (and I use the term 'laws' carefully). but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost. When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress. back on point. In trying to reduce Ed's frustration level with the 'loose' conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE. --- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or 'cracks'. Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces. assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void. Questions to contemplate: 1) what's inside that void? 2) what's the temperature in that void? 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void? 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void? -- Looking fwd to the Collective's thoughts. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass
More of Black EVs http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Permittivity%20Transitions.pdf Figure 5 and 6 on page 4 show how a white EV transforms into a black EV. Ken Shoulders states as follows: *In order to develop some reality about the appearance of white and black EVs, refer to Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 with each showing a single run of an EV toward a target at the top of the photo. These photos were taken from (1) as Fig. 4:40 and Fig. 4:42 where there is other photos showing similar affects. What can be seen is the white EV coming in from the lower side of the photo and then disappearing from camera view just before striking the target and disintegrating it. The white glob at the top is a plume of ions coming from the explosion. * *This can be validated by applying an analyzing field in the camera that produces a deflection to the left for ions and to the right for electrons. This analysis field has been applied in Fig. 6 and it can be seen that the white EV has moved to the right, signifying its emission products are electrons, while the ion plume moves to the left. The fact is, there is an omission of both electronic and optical traces during the black phase of the EV run. * ** *This is not an artifact of the measurement method because there are many examples where multiple cameras and visual observation showed such a disappearance.* *In the black state, there is no ability to ionize gas or to excite fluorescence from the nearby dielectric materials whereas there is with a white EV.* *As an aside, the question of fractional electronic charge becomes moot under the conditions discussed here. Although there are too many electrons in the process to determine a single electron level for a quantum check, it appears that there are many states of charge expression as the transition from white to black is made. * *Some of these could be like fractional charges in appearance. There are no obvious consequences of this affect.* *Unidirectional Current Flow:* *Under the conditions of white and black EV looping as stated above, there is an electrical peculiarity worth noting. The current flows in only the white EV direction thus giving the basic conditions for magnetic field generation without closing the current loop. The return charge flows around the other half of the loop without being registered in our instruments. This might be the basis for predicting something like a magnetic monopole.* *Under the conditions stated, it is possible to detect the vector potential, Ā, outside of the current loop usually used to define the vector potential habitat. This offers a communication method that is not shielded by conventional conductors because the electrons in the conductor are not excited into generating a mirror image. One must wonder what other electrons we are working with are also not excited by this unusual method of generating longitudinal emanations or potentials.* The black EV is produced by polariton creation. Of note Soulders states: *In the black state, there is no ability to ionize gas or to excite fluorescence from the nearby dielectric materials whereas there is with a white EV.* * From figure 5, it can be seen that the condensed vapors of the metal target take some short time to form nano-particles.* In the Black EV state electrons are converted to polaritons when the electrons of the white EV, the infrared EMF from the spark discharge, and the condensed nano-particle combined to form these polaritons. The infrared radiation of the spark explosion helps produce the polariton plume through the action of Fano interference. Shoulders remarks: *The fact is, there is an omission of both electronic and optical traces during the black phase of the EV run.* *Under the conditions of white and black EV looping as stated above, there is an electrical peculiarity worth noting.* *The current flows in only the white EV direction thus giving the basic conditions for magnetic field generation without closing the current loop. The return charge flows around the other half of the loop without being registered in our instruments. This might be the basis for predicting something like a magnetic monopole.* No. this results from polariton production, Ken. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The kinetic energy of an electron or group of electrons cannot match or exceed the power of hot fusion devices like ITER or the national fusion facility. The answer is not to be found in kinetic energy or the related relativistic speed of electrons. An arching electron will produce nano-particles when it deposits it kenetic energy on a metal surface. I believe that the dark modes seen in Ken Shoulders sees in his experiments are due to nano-particle generation when metal is vaporized by the kinetic energy of electrons. Ken Shoulders states as follows: The EV makes a streak of light as it travels across the surface of the dielectric, and imparts a localized surface charge. Unless
[Vo]:Test
Messages not posting.
Re: [Vo]:test
The list got too skeptical ? Demanded two-factor authorization? =8-(
Re: [Vo]:'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass
The kinetic energy of an electron or group of electrons cannot match or exceed the power of hot fusion devices like ITER or the national fusion facility. The answer is not to be found in kinetic energy or the related relativistic speed of electrons. An arching electron will produce nano-particles when it deposits it kenetic energy on a metal surface. I believe that the dark modes seen in Ken Shoulders sees in his experiments are due to nano-particle generation when metal is vaporized by the kinetic energy of electrons. Ken Shoulders states as follows: The EV makes a streak of light as it travels across the surface of the dielectric, and imparts a localized surface charge. Unless this charge is dispersed, it will cause the next EV to follow another path. A witness plate of metal foil may be positioned to intercept the EVs, and will sustain visible damage from their impact. The foil thus serves to detect and locate the entities even if they are invisible (black EVs). Black EVs are produced by Fano resonance of nano-particles produced by the condensation of metal vapor in concert with light radiation produced by the EV. Polaritons are thereby formed to resolve the EMF discharge into dark modes of EMF radiation. Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering act in concert with Fano resonance to turn the EMF of the spark inward into a local EMF focus where charge concentration is manifest. Figure 18 in this reference shows micro/nano particle production http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Charge%20Clusters%20In%20Action.pdf Nuclear transmutation is shown in figure 19. Notice that almost all of the transmutation is caused by fission. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Ed, Thanks for your reply. Your statement may be correct. I am looking for overlooked explanations for paradoxical LENR experiments. The Feynman Lecture reference I cited at the start of this thread shows that electrons in electric arcs can pick up significant linear momentum as current is interrupted. Due to their small mass, this extra momentum can give electrons a relativistic increase in kinetic energy, and so more mass. This quite counter-intuitive, since kinetic energy is normally defined in terms of velocity. High kinetic energy particles normally move - fast. However, because the electron momentum is defined by a differential operator, an immobile electron wave packet can gain kinetic energy by becoming more localized, and having a more oscillatory envelop. Perhaps this happens when an arcing electron collides with a proton, deuteron or triton which experiences an equal, opposite momentum 'kick' as the current stops. The deuteron and triton have obvious structure. The proton does also since it is a 'quark bag'. Possibly this structure is enough to trap an immobile (lab frame) colliding electron whose momentum is ramping up. K-shell electron capture is another conjecture. I checked my math. I think it is correct. This is also related to hidden field momentum, which manifests itself in the Feynman disk/cylinder (pseudo-)paradoxes. I believe that a similar analysis can be done for strong local transient coulomb forces in plasmons. All just a waste of time, if there really are no LENR transmutations, tho. -- Lou Pagnucco Lou, most experiments apply no extra energy other than temperature or electric current. We know that the level of temperature and current used do not and cannot initiate a nuclear reaction. Something else is important. Yes, small local variations in energy might occur, but these are not even close to what is required to initiate a nuclear reaction. We are discussing the LENR effect here, not whether small variations in energy might occur in a material based on some novel process. That subject requires a different discussion. Even when high energy is applied on purpose, such as by using ion bombardment, the energy required to get the observed rates is many thousands of eV and the result is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, we now know that energy cannot be spontaneously concentrated enough to cause the observed rates and if it were concentrated, the result would be only hot fusion. People keep trying to suggest minor processes that are observed to occur in materials under conditions that have no relationship to cold fusion. These discussion, while interesting and I'm sure informative, are not related to the subject at hand. If you want to understand CF, you need to focus on what is known about CF. We know that energy cannot spontaneously concentrate to levels required to initiate a nuclear reaction. We know that when energy is applied at the required level, hot fusion results, not cold fusion. Nevertheless, modest extra energy applied to when LENR is already occuring does increase the rate. This means the extra energy is not required to initiate the process, but affects some aspect
[Vo]:another test ignore
ignore
Re: [Vo]:test
Test response. Message received. Other messages not posting.
[Vo]:test
This is a test of the emergency broadband system. If this had been an actual emergency your computer would be a smoking heap. No need to reply to this test.
[Vo]:War of the Worlds?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/18/tech/moon-explosion A meteoroid struck the surface of the moon recently, causing an explosion that was visible on Earth without the aid of a telescope, NASA reported Friday. But don't be alarmed if you didn't see it; it only lasted about a second. It exploded in a flash nearly 10 times as bright as anything we've ever seen before, said Bill Cooke, of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office. more
[Vo]:Ping
Broken or disinterested?
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! -m I would be worried that the energy density of any system that is worked out would be low, since we're talking about the ground state. Eric
[Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective's discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist's tastes. and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the 'laws' of physics (and I use the term 'laws' carefully). but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost. When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress. back on point. In trying to reduce Ed's frustration level with the 'loose' conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE. --- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or 'cracks'. Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces. assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void. Questions to contemplate: 1) what's inside that void? 2) what's the temperature in that void? 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void? 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void? -- Looking fwd to the Collective's thoughts. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:test
Thanks, Bill! On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:eskimo still down
If it is down, how am I reading this? Did you get my pong response to your earlier ping? Sent to list and you personally. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:11 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: Apparently list servers at eskimo are down. Owner Bob D. had been making major changes to spam filtering to prevent bouncing Ed and others. So, this very message vanished without a trace, right? Or are ONLY msgs from the users inside eskimo.com accepted? While waiting, go see new files: N. Tesla FAQ (some new info) http://amasci.com/tesla/**teslafaq.htmlhttp://amasci.com/tesla/teslafaq.html Tesla's secrets, what WERE they? http://amasci.com/tesla/**tesecr1.htmlhttp://amasci.com/tesla/tesecr1.html Wardenclyffe stuff http://amasci.com/tesla/**wardenclyffe.htmlhttp://amasci.com/tesla/wardenclyffe.html (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:eskimo list service down
Appears that list server at eskimo is down. If this one is seen, it's because one user's direct Whitelisting of one addr does work!
Re: [Vo]:test
a c c d true false false true antidisetablishmentarianism , because sailing, travel, and monster stories were popular, thus Moby Dick was a preemptive commercial success. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Test
Testing from gmail.
Ed, I won't have PC access till Monday so may have to focus on single points using just phone. I don't think the initial assumptions for casimir effect are correct. The suppression of vacuum radiatio
[Vo]:eskimo.com list service down
Appears that list server at eskimo is down.If this one is seen, it's because direct Whitelisting of one addr does work.
Re: [Vo]:'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass
Do you understand that you are focusing only on the Rossi method, while I'm talking about all 5 of the other methods known to initiate nuclear reactions? If your model cannot explain all methods and results, then it is not very useful. Axil, the Rossi reactor is not a nanosystem because at the temperature he is using, nanoparticles immediately sinter into larger particles. This is a chemical fact. He may start with some nanoparticles in his material, but these do not last long at the final temperature, yet the system continues to make energy. If nano particles were required to cause LENR, why would a reactor continue to make heat after the nano particles disappeared? I do not understand what relationship you propose exists between the ionization potential and the dielectric behavior. I also do not understand how the dielectric behavior has any effect on a nuclear reaction. The concept is based on an electron being temporarily displaced from its normal equilibrium position around an atom. The H in a material is already ionized, hence no electron is present to be displaced. In addition, the definition of dielectric does not apply to Ni because it is a conductor. As for a gas, a voltage will not have much effect until the gas ionizes. This process has no relationship to the concept of dielectric. Consequently, I have no idea what process you are describing or how it relates to LENR. Dielectric From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A dielectric is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field. When a dielectric is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in a conductor, but only slightly shift from their average equilibrium positions causing dielectric polarization. I get the impression that you have a very personal view of what happens during LENR and even what happens in Nature. I'm having a hard time understanding how this view has any relationship to what I know to be true. Ed Storms On May 17, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed Storms states: What temperature? LENR works near room temperature. Axil Responds: In the Ni/H reactor, the startup temperature is about 60C to 80C. Ed Storms states: No evidence exists that a large number of nano particles are present during LENR, although a few are always present everywhere. Axil Responds: In the Ni/H reactor, the micro-particles are covered with nano- structures or “tubules” as Rossi calls them. DGT also must produce a nano-wire cover of the micro-particle because they do micro-particle surface preparation. I call these micro-particles a two stage particle system because they are both a micro-particle and a nano-particle ensemble. Ed Storms states: No evidence exists that a large number of nano particles are present during LENR, although a few are always present everywhere. Axil Responds You don’t understand the design details of the Ni/H reactor yet. The Ni/H reactor is a nano-system. LENR took a step forward to LENR+ when nano-particles where introduced to upgrade the LENR design. Ed Storms states: I have no idea what you mean. What is a dielectric gas envelope? Axil Responds Sorted by 1st Ionization Potential (eV), Name, Sym # 12.130 Xenon Xe 54 12.967 Chlorine Cl 17 13.598 Hydrogen H 1 13.618 Oxygen O 8 13.999 Krypton Kr 36 14.534 Nitrogen N 7 15.759 Argon Ar 18 17.422 Fluorine F 9 21.564 Neon Ne 10 24.587 Helium He 2 You will notice that hydrogen is highly dielectric. Ed Storms states: Potassium is seldom used. No additive is present during gas loading or gas discharge. Lithium is normally used during electrolysis. Axil Responds: Any alkali metal will produce nano-clusters; some more than others. Ed Storms states: This is a nice idea, but it has no connection with how LENR is actually made to work. Because CF works without these conditions, I conclude these conditions are not necessary to make it work. Axil responds: In a LENR system a few cracks form with some nano-particles inside them mostly derived from impurities and hydrogen and or alkali metal clustering. LENR is weak, transient, random, and intermittent because of this. In a Ni/H reactor, a billion NAE sites are formed under the action of the “secret sauce”. The LENR+ reaction is strong, permanent, consistent, and controllable because of nano-engineering. . The difference between LENR where random forces might or might not produce a weak reaction and LENR+ which is engineered to consistently generate a large reaction is intentional and consistent nano-engineering design. You oftentimes say that the LENR engineer must standardize and optimize what is happening in those palladium cracks. But when the answer is presented to you, you cannot appreciate it. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Edmund Storms
Re: [Vo]:test
OK Bill On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:04 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try: Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with KOH. It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode. I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil. Seems like it can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! -m -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Mark, A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for free energy. Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht ml Is it only a matter of time... ? -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Let's put some numbers to it... From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation: F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original derivation in 1948) F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um. Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom. -mark -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Hi Ed, I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds here and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting Vorts are open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism. We also are not concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' topics. I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very specific questions about the NAE; please look for it. Now on to your question... RE: I assume its normal EM radiation? Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered normal EM radiation. I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL). The LANL Directory shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area, and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail? Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you want a more accurate explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum Computing http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf ... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause drag in a superfluid moving at any speed. -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. I'm sure all of these issues have been addressed. I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher frequency than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material without interacting or producing a force. What produces the force? The photons that are captured by the gap pass through the material without interacting until they reach the gap. Only at the gap is their presence felt by the material, but in the form of heat energy. For a force to be felt by the material, the photons must interact and transfer momentum. Does this mean all vacuum photons change direction when passing through a material and the gap simply removes a momentum vector such that a net force remains perpendicular to the gap? If this is the explanation, we have still another assumption - a photon
Re: [Vo]:test
I'll pong even though you didn't ping. Maybe I should just take a shower ;) On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Thanks for the reference, but I meant the sort of drag one experiences when moving through a fluid at a constant velocity. I found this link which gives a qualitative account of their theory of mass http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html and they say because the Zero Point Field (ZPF) is Lorentz invariant it does not create a drag at constant velocity. Instead they say acceleration of charged matter through the ZPF creates a kind of counterforce which we interpret as inertia. All the efforts to explain the origin of inertia as an effect of some other force or energy field look for theoretical justification to question the validity of the law of inertia. However, if we let experience be our guide we don't need theoretical justification to question the law. For example, the law is not respected by the motion of a thrown pebble. The pebble demonstrates a capacity for acceleration. Of course, the modern convention is to imagine the Earth exerting a force because it is assumed a priori that the apple is continuously obeying the law even while it is in free fall. ( General relativity retains the doctrine of the continuity of natural law but bends the law in order to account for the acceleration). Instead the Earth can be viewed as providing a stimulus for the apple's acceleration and the law of inertia comes into effect again when the apple hits the ground. Harry On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:20 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Yes, it’s called inertia… Bernie Haisch and Alfonso Rueda derived it (F=ma), and published it in Physical Revue A in 1994. -mark ** ** *From:* Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2013 11:44 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) ** ** Assuming the casimir force is the best explanation of the observed force on the plates, wouldn't the vacuum energy produce a drag on all moving bodies? Harry ** ** On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Ed: Two things... 1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir effect... (sorry Fran). Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range of frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably approaching the Plank frequency). Closely spaced, parallel conducting plates will ONLY exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing between the plates. This is what creates the unbalanced forces which want to push the plates together. All vacuum frequencies are pushing on the outside surfaces of the plates, but a limited range of frequencies are between the plates, so forces pushing plates apart is less than outside forces pushing plates together. This effect only becomes significant for very small plate separation. 2. Empirical evidence for the Casimir effect is now fairly well established, and has been tested by several groups, including Steve Lamoreaux from your old stomping ground of Los Alamos. It has also become a practical issue now that nanotechnology has reached the commercialization stage. The following is from the Wikipedia article: - One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay at Philips in Eindhoven, in 1958, in a delicate and difficult experiment with parallel plates, obtaining results not in contradiction with the Casimir theory,[22][23] but with large experimental errors. Some of the experimental details as well as some background information on how Casimir, Polder and Sparnaay arrived at this point[24] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with Marcus Sparnaay. The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K. Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[25] and by Umar Mohideen and Anushree Roy of the University of California at Riverside.[26] In practice, rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a large radius. In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using microresonators.[27] --- -Mark
[Vo]:Undiscovered error hypothesis
Cude and other skeptics have recently brought up the undiscovered error hypothesis. Here is a response to that by Melich and Rothwell: Undiscovered error hypothesis Some skeptics claim that there might be a yet-undiscovered error in the experiments. [As Beaudette wrote] “if the measurements are incorrect, then an avid pursuit of the ‘science’ must in due course explicitly and particularly reveal that incorrectness.” More to the point, the claim that there might be an undiscovered error is not falsifiable, and it applies to every experiment ever performed. There might be an undiscovered error in experiments confirming Newton’s or Boyle’s laws, but these experiments have been done so many times that the likelihood they are wrong is vanishingly small. Furthermore, skeptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold fusion researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. A skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and physics from the last 130 years. As a practical matter, there is no possibility that techniques such as calorimetry, x-ray film autoradiography or mass spectroscopy are fundamentally flawed. It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design specifications. Cold fusion does not require heroic measurement techniques. Heat and tritium are not usually measured close to the limits of detection, although they have been in some cases, and helium and transmutations have been. It has been argued that even though the instruments work, the researchers may be making mistakes and using the instrument incorrectly. No doubt some of them are, but most are experienced scientists at major labs. The effect has been confirmed at 180 major laboratories [Storms, Table 1]. If an experiment could be as widely replicated as this could be mistaken, the experimental method itself would not work.
Re: [Vo]:Undiscovered error hypothesis
That sounds more like the religious concept of blind faith over reason. I have faith that cold fusion isn't possible, therefore there must be an error in any scientific evidence to the contrary. It's right up there with the devil put dinosaur bones in the earth to confuse us. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude and other skeptics have recently brought up the undiscovered error hypothesis. Here is a response to that by Melich and Rothwell: Undiscovered error hypothesis Some skeptics claim that there might be a yet-undiscovered error in the experiments. [As Beaudette wrote] “if the measurements are incorrect, then an avid pursuit of the ‘science’ must in due course explicitly and particularly reveal that incorrectness.” More to the point, the claim that there might be an undiscovered error is not falsifiable, and it applies to every experiment ever performed. There might be an undiscovered error in experiments confirming Newton’s or Boyle’s laws, but these experiments have been done so many times that the likelihood they are wrong is vanishingly small. Furthermore, skeptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold fusion researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. A skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and physics from the last 130 years. As a practical matter, there is no possibility that techniques such as calorimetry, x-ray film autoradiography or mass spectroscopy are fundamentally flawed. It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design specifications. Cold fusion does not require heroic measurement techniques. Heat and tritium are not usually measured close to the limits of detection, although they have been in some cases, and helium and transmutations have been. It has been argued that even though the instruments work, the researchers may be making mistakes and using the instrument incorrectly. No doubt some of them are, but most are experienced scientists at major labs. The effect has been confirmed at 180 major laboratories [Storms, Table 1]. If an experiment could be as widely replicated as this could be mistaken, the experimental method itself would not work.
[Vo]:is it working?- euphemisms
This is nice: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22470691 but let's discover our specific LENR euphemisms. Peter Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Ping
pong On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Broken or disinterested?
Re: [Vo]:Undiscovered error hypothesis
It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design specifications. ***This means that Cold Fusion doesn't really qualify as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. It is basically an ordinary claim.It is skeptopaths who are generating extraordinary claims such as EVERY instance out of 14,720 replications are errors, which has been shown to be well past impossible by more than 4400 orders of magnitude. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude and other skeptics have recently brought up the undiscovered error hypothesis. Here is a response to that by Melich and Rothwell: Undiscovered error hypothesis Some skeptics claim that there might be a yet-undiscovered error in the experiments. [As Beaudette wrote] “if the measurements are incorrect, then an avid pursuit of the ‘science’ must in due course explicitly and particularly reveal that incorrectness.” More to the point, the claim that there might be an undiscovered error is not falsifiable, and it applies to every experiment ever performed. There might be an undiscovered error in experiments confirming Newton’s or Boyle’s laws, but these experiments have been done so many times that the likelihood they are wrong is vanishingly small. Furthermore, skeptics have had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold fusion researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. A skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and physics from the last 130 years. As a practical matter, there is no possibility that techniques such as calorimetry, x-ray film autoradiography or mass spectroscopy are fundamentally flawed. It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design specifications. Cold fusion does not require heroic measurement techniques. Heat and tritium are not usually measured close to the limits of detection, although they have been in some cases, and helium and transmutations have been. It has been argued that even though the instruments work, the researchers may be making mistakes and using the instrument incorrectly. No doubt some of them are, but most are experienced scientists at major labs. The effect has been confirmed at 180 major laboratories [Storms, Table 1]. If an experiment could be as widely replicated as this could be mistaken, the experimental method itself would not work.
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Jack, you would have more success and not waste your time if you applied some basic chemistry. More hydrogen does not result in more loading. Only the pressure and temperature determine the amount of loading. In addition, Constantan does not dissolve much H in any case. Addition of aluminum will do nothing to the Constantan. Cold fusion may be hard to understand but it does not mean the laws of chemistry have creased to function. Ed Storms On May 18, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote: As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try: Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with KOH. It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode. I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil. Seems like it can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! -m -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Mark, A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for free energy. Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht ml Is it only a matter of time... ? -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Let's put some numbers to it... From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation: F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original derivation in 1948) F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um. Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom. -mark -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Hi Ed, I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds here and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting Vorts are open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism. We also are not concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' topics. I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very specific questions about the NAE; please look for it. Now on to your question... RE: I assume its normal EM radiation? Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered normal EM radiation. I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL). The LANL Directory shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area, and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail? Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you want a more accurate explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum Computing http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf ... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause drag in a superfluid moving at any speed. -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. I'm sure all of these issues have been addressed. I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher frequency than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material without interacting or producing a force. What produces the force? The photons that are captured by the gap pass through the
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Very good. Thanks Ed for the insight. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Jack, you would have more success and not waste your time if you applied some basic chemistry. More hydrogen does not result in more loading. Only the pressure and temperature determine the amount of loading. In addition, Constantan does not dissolve much H in any case. Addition of aluminum will do nothing to the Constantan. Cold fusion may be hard to understand but it does not mean the laws of chemistry have creased to function. Ed Storms On May 18, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote: As Dr. Storms has already tried NiAl, I'm giving the following a try: Constantan wire with aluminum wire twisted around it in electrolysis with KOH. It appears to be producing hydrogen very vigorously at the cathode. I've also considered wrapping nickel in aluminum foil. Seems like it can't hurt to have more hydrogen available for loading, but I don't know that this will be advantageous compared with a gas-loaded cell. On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time... but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen! -m -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Mark, A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for free energy. Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht ml Is it only a matter of time... ? -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Let's put some numbers to it... From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation: F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original derivation in 1948) F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um. Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom. -mark -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Hi Ed, I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds here and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting Vorts are open-minded, but not without a healthy level of skepticism. We also are not concerned about discussing potentially 'career limiting/destroying' topics. I will be starting a new vortex thread and I want to ask (you) some very specific questions about the NAE; please look for it. Now on to your question... RE: I assume its normal EM radiation? Not sure... but I don't think 'vacuum quantum fluctuations' are considered normal EM radiation. I think the best (i.e., most accurate) explanation should come from the experts, like Lamoreaux and Peter Milonni (also LANL). The LANL Directory shows both as Retired Fellows... perhaps one of them is still in the area, and you could meet up for lunch to discuss in more detail? Here's a youtube presentation by Dr. Milonni, and a few papers if you want a more accurate explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12yjbyunRdM Casimir Effects: Peter Milonni's lecture at the Institute for Quantum Computing http://cnls.lanl.gov/casimir/PresentationsSF/Force_Control-talk.pdf Precise Measurements of the Casimir Force: Experimental Details (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dalvit/Talks_files/Piriapolis_09.pdf Towards Casimir force repulsion with metamaterials (Presentation format so has excellent graphics) http://cnls.lanl.gov/~dcr/CasimirDrag_ContPhys.pdf ... research suggesting that scattering quantum fluctuations might cause drag in a superfluid moving at any speed. -Mark Iverson -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl) Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. I'm sure all of these issues have been addressed. I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher frequency than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material
[Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers, positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)... does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great discovery, at inception, like : - planes - hygiena - continental drift/wegener - QM - fission - heliocentrism - immunization - 5-symmetric crystal I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)... it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have answers.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That is my frustration. New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else. Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the wheel every time a new phenomenon is discovered. On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective’s discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist’s tastes… and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the ‘laws’ of physics (and I use the term ‘laws’ carefully)… but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost… When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress… back on point. In trying to reduce Ed’s frustration level with the ‘loose’ conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE… --- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or ‘cracks’… Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces… assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void… Questions to contemplate: 1) what’s inside that void? The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the electrons in the wall that are associated with the metal atoms making up the wall. The charge is strong because it is now unbalance as a result of the walls being too far apart for the electron orbits (waves) to be properly balanced. This condition attracts hydrons (hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by releasing Gibbs energy. In so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent structure in the form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer together than is normally possible because the electron concentration between them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the frequency of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical distance, energy is emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once enough energy has been emitted as a series of weak photons, the fusion process is completed by the intervening electron being sucked into the final nuclear product. The details of how this process works will be described later. 2) what’s the temperature in that void? The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap as
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
zero percent of those who have actually run the experiments themselves? On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers, positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)... does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great discovery, at inception, like : - planes - hygiena - continental drift/wegener - QM - fission - heliocentrism - immunization - 5-symmetric crystal I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)... it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have answers.
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
Wait, what about pylori? On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: It is about minorities % of physicists who believe in LENR; % of LENR- ists who believe in LENR+ (but wait a year!) I think the most relevant, relative recent case is that of Helicobacter pylori The case is well described, statistics cannot be made. All the cases are half history , three quarter anecdote. My poisoning hypothesis is analogous to it, but I will not receive the Nobel Prize. Peter On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers, positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)... does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great discovery, at inception, like : - planes - hygiena - continental drift/wegener - QM - fission - heliocentrism - immunization - 5-symmetric crystal I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)... it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have answers. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
See please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, two Australian physicians had great troubles with the colleagues. Peter On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Alexander Hollins alexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, what about pylori? On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: It is about minorities % of physicists who believe in LENR; % of LENR- ists who believe in LENR+ (but wait a year!) I think the most relevant, relative recent case is that of Helicobacter pylori The case is well described, statistics cannot be made. All the cases are half history , three quarter anecdote. My poisoning hypothesis is analogous to it, but I will not receive the Nobel Prize. Peter On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? is there a recent number about the number or peer-reviewed papers, positive or negative about LENR, eliminating the journal that are dedicated to LENr, free energies, and uncommon science (as mainstream says)... does some people also know that kind of numbers for other past great discovery, at inception, like : - planes - hygiena - continental drift/wegener - QM - fission - heliocentrism - immunization - 5-symmetric crystal I'm afraid there are few of those data, and that the few data on recent stories have been erased (like 5-symmetries)... it seems that today it is a problem to address, so at least I should have answers. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed said: Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise: .because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications. If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where 'laws' failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word 'always' in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine's work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the 'laws' of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which *potentially* place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That is my frustration. New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else. Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the wheel every time a new phenomenon is discovered. On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective's discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist's tastes. and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the 'laws' of physics (and I use the term 'laws' carefully). but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost. When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress. back on point. In trying to reduce Ed's frustration level with the 'loose' conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE. --- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or 'cracks'. Stress that chunk of palladium so a
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? I do not think the question is meaningful. As Ed says, all discoveries start with only one person believing them (the discoverer). The only way to determine this would be with a public opinion poll. The only poll I know of was taken in Japan many years ago. It showed that roughly half of scientists and engineers believed there might be something to cold fusion. I have no idea what the numbers would be now. The 2004 DoE review panel was a kind of poll. In answer to Charge 2, 6 Yes, 10 No, 2 Don't know. However, as you see, the reasons given by the 10 who said No were ludicrous and would bring a failing grade in any high school science class. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf If you ran a poll, you would have to ask qualifying questions to make it meaningful. Start by asking: Have you read 5 or more papers on cold fusion, including at least 3 written after 1989? Are you familiar with the work of Dr. M. McKubre? Anyone who answers No to these has no knowledge of the subject, and no right to any opinion, positive or negative. I would disqualify them. Based on the audience at LENR-CANR I would say that most scientists and engineers who have read several papers agree that the effect is real. I cannot put an exact number on that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Couldn't agree MORE with your statement that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain anything, given a few initial assumptions. case in point, quantum physics! ;-) And those pesky infinities.what to do with those? Let's just 'renormalize' them. I wonder if it as a physicist or a mathematician who came up with that? RE: renormalization in quantum physics. (from Wikipedia) Dirac's criticism was the most persistent.[7] As late as 1975, he was saying:[8] Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it! Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:[9] The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate. -mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... deleted for brevity Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. rest deleted for brevity
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
Most likely less than .1% 2013/5/19 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
I have no doubt that the result will be evewhelmingly against, meaningless, and based on ignorance... the question is what could an opponent use to support his position? maybe is is a consequence of the democracy meme, but it seems that today we trust more majority than evidences... we also ask more theory than evidences. probably because we don't agree on evidences (one key point of thomas kuhn, that during paradigm change position are incomparable)... another point maybe I forgot is that LENR, being experimental, let no real doubt to someone well informed, no room for credible discussions, so the only escape for rejecting it is not reading papers. in some other domains it is easier to discuss endlessly on precises points of detail so you can ignore the key factual evidences. but even key evidences, are ignored, or claimed to be different from the public measure, yet claimed from those public measures... the idea is that the human work naturally in reverse mode, decide what they believe, then find how to find or ignore evidences. anyway some sunny day, it is really funny to see people have tea and chat beside a big elephant in the living room. on rainy days, it is making me desperate. there is an epidemy of elephant in living room. it start to be dangerous. seriously dangerous. 8( 2013/5/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Just a practical question . (serious, I need a number) is there any statistic about the ratio of physicist who think LENR is not real? I do not think the question is meaningful. As Ed says, all discoveries start with only one person believing them (the discoverer). The only way to determine this would be with a public opinion poll. The only poll I know of was taken in Japan many years ago. It showed that roughly half of scientists and engineers believed there might be something to cold fusion. I have no idea what the numbers would be now. The 2004 DoE review panel was a kind of poll. In answer to Charge 2, 6 Yes, 10 No, 2 Don't know. However, as you see, the reasons given by the 10 who said No were ludicrous and would bring a failing grade in any high school science class. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf If you ran a poll, you would have to ask qualifying questions to make it meaningful. Start by asking: Have you read 5 or more papers on cold fusion, including at least 3 written after 1989? Are you familiar with the work of Dr. M. McKubre? Anyone who answers No to these has no knowledge of the subject, and no right to any opinion, positive or negative. I would disqualify them. Based on the audience at LENR-CANR I would say that most scientists and engineers who have read several papers agree that the effect is real. I cannot put an exact number on that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
1) what’s inside that void? Reference concerning nano-particles: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/Pres/06aMiley-Transmutations.pdf *Transmutation Type LENR* * * George H. Miley Connection to nano-particle catalytic LENR studies -Our work attempts to nano-manufacture voids (pores: dislocation loops) for cluster formation, vs. voids created in nano-particle catalysis. -Objective = control of void dimensions, hence cluster formation and resulting reactions (per my 10 min comment presentation later) . -Consider A. Takahashi’s theory presented at recent ACS meeting to visualize the connection. (Thanks also to him for recent discussions of this and our cluster work.) The voids contain nano-particles called Rydberg matter of various species. 2) what’s the temperature in that void? Ambient temperature of the system because the system is superfluid. 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void? The E fields are huge, the B fields are minimal. The E fields are forms by a photonic BEC formed by the superconducting polaritons that the Rydberg matter based nano-particles generate. 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void? The electrons are delocalized from their negative electric charge. This charge is now carried by the infrared photons in the cavity. On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective’s discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist’s tastes… and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the ‘laws’ of physics (and I use the term ‘laws’ carefully)… but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost… When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress… back on point. ** ** In trying to reduce Ed’s frustration level with the ‘loose’ conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE… ** ** --- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or ‘cracks’… ** ** Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces… assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. ** ** Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void…*** * ** ** Questions to contemplate: 1) what’s inside that void? 2) what’s the temperature in that void? 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void? 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void?** ** -- ** ** Looking fwd to the Collective’s thoughts… -Mark ** **
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
I have to stop getting distracted from the main point I wanted to discuss in this thread. I posited the following: I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE. -- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or 'cracks'. Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces. assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void. 1) what's inside that void? 2) what's the temperature in that void? To which Ed answered, mainly expressing what his view is inside this void: The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the electrons in the wall that are associated with the metal atoms making up the wall. The charge is strong because it is now unbalance as a result of the walls being too far apart for the electron orbits (waves) to be properly balanced. This condition attracts hydrons (hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by releasing Gibbs energy. In so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent structure in the form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer together than is normally possible because the electron concentration between them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the frequency of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical distance, energy is emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once enough energy has been emitted as a series of weak photons, the fusion process is completed by the intervening electron being sucked into the final nuclear product. The details of how this process works will be described later. The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap as phonons. The photon/phonon ratio is still unknown. Nevertheless, the rate of photon emission is large enough to be detected outside of the apparatus when H is used. To which I respond: But if the void is tens of 'atom-diameters' across, you are way beyond the influence of any electrons, unless they are 'free' electrons flying around in that void. Restrict your viewpoint to only the interior of the void. *For the sake of argument*, assume that there are NO free atoms, sub-atomic particles or photons flying around in the void. in that case, do you not have a *perfect vacuum*? And as to my second question, what's the temperature of a perfect vacuum? Would it not be 0.000K in temperature? Ed is positing that the NAE are essential to LENR, and I am positing that the VOIDs are a major element in the NAE, AND that the conditions in the VOIDs are NOT those of the bulk, surrounding matter; in fact, they are very different. To understand the NAE requires an understanding of EXACTLY what the conditions are INSIDE the voids. Ed, perhaps you could summarize what the various viewpoints are as to the physical environment inside these voids. -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of range. I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed said: “Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply.” I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise: “…because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications.” If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where ‘laws’ failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word ‘always’ in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine’s work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the ‘laws’ of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which *potentially* place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That is my frustration. New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else. Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the wheel every time a new phenomenon is discovered. On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective’s discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
George H. Miley has experimentally found Rydberg matter in the cavities. End of story. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of range. I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed said: “*Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply.”* ** ** I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise:** ** ** ** “…because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications.” ** ** If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where ‘laws’ failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word ‘always’ in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine’s work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system ** ** I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the ‘laws’ of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which **potentially** place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com ] *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... ** ** *Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. * ** ** *Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. * ** ** *This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That is my frustration. * ** ** *New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else. Science has come a long way and
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On May 19, 2013, at 11:55 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: To which Ed answered, mainly expressing what his view is inside this void: “The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the electrons in the wall that are associated with the metal atoms making up the wall. The charge is strong because it is now unbalance as a result of the walls being too far apart for the electron orbits (waves) to be properly balanced. This condition attracts hydrons (hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by releasing Gibbs energy. In so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent structure in the form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer together than is normally possible because the electron concentration between them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the frequency of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical distance, energy is emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once enough energy has been emitted as a series of weak photons, the fusion process is completed by the intervening electron being sucked into the final nuclear product. The details of how this process works will be described later.” The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap as phonons. The photon/phonon ratio is still unknown. Nevertheless, the rate of photon emission is large enough to be detected outside of the apparatus when H is used. To which I respond: But if the void is tens of ‘atom-diameters’ across, you are way beyond the influence of any electrons, unless they are ‘free’ electrons flying around in that void. Restrict your viewpoint to only the interior of the void… Mark, you are making assumptions that do not need to be made. Regardless of what you imagine might be the case, hydrons MUST assemble because otherwise they can not fuse. The entire process hinges on hydrons assembling in an unconventional way. That requirement is basic. The challenge is to discover how this is possible without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Of course, if you keep making assumptions, the process can either be rejected or justified, your choice. I make the assumptions I think can be justified and try to find where they lead. In my case, they lead to a model that can explain ALL behavior without making additional assumptions. While this might be a wild goose chase, it does provide a useful path, which other theories have not done. *For the sake of argument*, assume that there are NO free atoms, sub- atomic particles or photons flying around in the void… in that case, do you not have a *perfect vacuum*? And as to my second question, what’s the temperature of a perfect vacuum? Would it not be 0.000K in temperature? I have no idea how the concept of vacuum applies. The NAE is a chemical state within a material. As H enters the state, they generate Gibbs energy, which is dissipated as heat (phonons). As a result, the region gets hot. The hydrons would not assemble if this energy were not generated, thereby producing heat. That is the basic nature of a chemical process. Ed is positing that the NAE are essential to LENR, and I am positing that the VOIDs are a major element in the NAE, AND that the conditions in the VOIDs are NOT those of the bulk, surrounding matter; in fact, they are very different. To understand the NAE requires an understanding of EXACTLY what the conditions are INSIDE the voids. Yes, the void is very different from the lattice. That is the whole point to the idea behind the NAE. A nuclear reaction cannot take place in a normal lattice. A change must take place. This change produces a different condition I call the NAE. In my model, this NAE is a gap created by stress relief. Other models imagine a different condition. Regardless of the condition, it MUST contain hydrons because that is what experiences fusion, which is the essential result of cold fusion. Ed, perhaps you could summarize what the various viewpoints are as to the physical environment inside these voids. The different theories use various features. Hagelstein uses metal atom vacancies, Miley uses dislocations, Takahashi uses special sites on the surface, and Kim assumes a BEC can form within the lattice. Each of these conditions are used to justify formation of a group of hydrons that fuse by some mysterious process. Other theories (Chubb for example) assume the process can occur whenever the lattice gets fully saturated with hydrons without a cluster being required. Ed Storms -Mark Iverson
RE: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Axil: Were the voids he studied at the surface??? If so, then you failed to read my posting accurately. I am discussing voids which are formed internally, and completely isolated from the surface layers. How did Miley determine that? If he was looking at surface defects (voids), then that is completely different from the environment I am positing. If he was looking at SUB-surface voids, then how did he see thru numerous atomic layers in order to determine what was inside a void? How do you know that whatever process he used didn't cause the Rydberg matter in the first place? -Mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:13 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... George H. Miley has experimentally found Rydberg matter in the cavities. End of story. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of range. I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed said: Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise: .because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications. If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where 'laws' failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word 'always' in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine's work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the 'laws' of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which *potentially* place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with
[Vo]:Is Kepler Kaput?
Things were going so well. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/keplerm-20130515.html
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
If you looked at the reference I provided, you would have seen both internal and external voids filled with Rydberg matter through hydrogen loading. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Axil: Were the voids he studied at the surface??? If so, then you failed to read my posting accurately. I am discussing voids which are formed internally, and completely isolated from the surface layers. ** ** How did Miley determine that? If he was looking at surface defects (voids), then that is completely different from the environment I am positing. If he was looking at SUB-surface voids, then how did he see thru numerous atomic layers in order to determine what was inside a void? How do you know that whatever process he used didn’t cause the Rydberg matter in the first place? ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:13 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... ** ** George H. Miley has experimentally found Rydberg matter in the cavities. End of story. ** ** On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of range. ** ** I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture. ** ** Ed Storms ** ** ** ** ** ** On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed said: “*Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply.”* I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise:** ** “…because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications.” If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where ‘laws’ failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word ‘always’ in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine’s work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the ‘laws’ of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which **potentially** place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. -Mark *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com ] *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... *Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. * *Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions,
Re: [Vo]:'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass
Ed Storms states: *Do you understand that you are focusing only on the Rossi method, while I'm talking about all 5 of the other methods known to initiate nuclear reactions? If your model cannot explain all methods and results, then it is not very useful.* Axil responds: I can see how the nano-particle based Nanoplasmonic model can address all five categories of LENR reactions. Clustering on the mesoscopic size scale as a chemical process is all pervasive in nature and little understood by the physics community. Ed Storms states: *Axil, the Rossi reactor is not a nanosystem because at the temperature he is using, nanoparticles immediately sinter into larger particles. This is a chemical fact. He may start with some nanoparticles in his material, but these do not last long at the final temperature, yet the system continues to make energy. If nano particles were required to cause LENR, why would a reactor continue to make heat after the nano particles disappeared?* There is a class of Rydberg matter that condenses and evaporates like water in the evaporation cycle. As an example, consider how cesium behaves in a thermionic converter. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039602892913359 Very low work function surfaces from condensed excited states: Rydberg matter of cesium ; “Measurements of work functions on the electrodes in plasma diodes of the thermionic energy converter (TEC) type are commonly made by studies of the voltage-current characteristics. The plasma in such converters is a low temperature cesium plasma, between two electrodes at different temperatures, around 1500 and 800 K respectively. We have recently reported on new phenomena in such plasmas, giving very strong electron emission from the cold to the hot electrode. This type of behavior is related to the formation of large densities of excited states, and we explain the observations as due to a condensed phase of excited cesium atoms, which we call Rydberg matter. This type of matter was recently predicted theoretically by Manykin et al. An analysis of the diode measurements gives very low work functions for the excited matter, less than 0.7 eV and probably less than 0.5 eV. This low work function agrees with the jellium model, since the density of atoms in Rydberg matter is very low.” Cesium is a vapor near the hot electrode at 1500C and solid in the form of nano-particles on and around the low temperature electrode at 500C. Potassium is a close cousin to cesium but operates at a higher temperature. This evaporation cycle must occur in the Ni/H reactor. Ed Storms states: *I do not understand what relationship you propose exists between the ionization potential and the dielectric behavior. I also do not understand how the dielectric behavior has any effect on a nuclear reaction. The concept is based on an electron being temporarily displaced from its normal equilibrium position around an atom. The H in a material is already ionized, hence no electron is present to be displaced. In addition, the definition of dielectric does not apply to Ni because it is a conductor. As for a gas, a voltage will not have much effect until the gas ionizes. This process has no relationship to the concept of dielectric. Consequently, I have no idea what process you are describing or how it relates to LENR. * Axil responds: The key to LENR is charge screening not *“A concept based on an electron being temporarily displaced from its normal equilibrium position around an atom. The H in a material is already ionized”* Here is how charge screening is amplified. The evanescent wave There is an EMF power amplification factor of up to 10 to the 15 power experimentally demonstrated by nanolenzes formed by nanowires and nanoparticles. The question is “how does such a concentration of power occur?” An evanescent wave exits in the near-field of a reflecting surface with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay with distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one third of a wavelength from the surface of formation. This is the reason why electric arching and dielectric boundaries are important in LENR. EMF amplification involves solutions of Maxwell’s equations and boundary conditions where imaginary solutions are manifest. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave Total internal reflection of light In the context of Ni/H LENR+, the boundary between nickel and pressurized hydrogen forms a boundary trap where the capacitive EMF(electrons) accumulate because there is a Total internal reflection of this EMF at the boundary of the metal hydrogen interface. These electron waves accumulate and superimpose constructively. This EMF wave function has no solution that
Re: [Vo]:Is Kepler Kaput?
I think the vacuum' of space, especially near the Sun, is a lot more energetic then we think due to those billions of tons of energetic particles expelled daily in all different directions. It is apparently very hard on equipment. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Things were going so well. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/keplerm-20130515.html
Re: [Vo]:Percentage of Physicist who reject LENR
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I have no doubt that the result will be evewhelmingly against, meaningless, and based on ignorance... I'm not so sure about that. I think that we should give people some credit. By that I mean that it is my impression that professionals will generally readily acknowledge when they don't know anything about a subject, which I suspect is the case for most with regard to cold fusion. Following is an imaginary breakdown of how professionals in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) view cold fusion. The breakdown is not intended to be an accurate one, just a plausible one that could potentially show what an accurate one might look like. - Of those who have not looked into the matter (perhaps they didn't know to), they assume from the press coverage back in 1989 that cold fusion has been debunked as a falsehood. Their opinion to this effect is based solely on what they heard at the time, and if asked, they would acknowledge this. Perhaps the large majority of people -- 90 percent or more. - Of those who have followed the more recent developments: - Some find the whole thing to be impossible or highly unlikely and the cold fusion work to be the output of a group of unfortunate, deluded semi-professionals. This would be about 10 percent of the remaining 10 percent -- 1 percent in all. - Some are not sure what to make of cold fusion and recognize that they don't have all of the information needed to make an informed judgment. Perhaps 70 percent of the remaining 10 percent -- 7 percent in all. - Some have seen enough to be persuaded that there is an a priori case to be made for investigating the matter further. Perhaps 15 percent of the remaining 10 percent -- 1.5 percent in all. - Some have seen enough to be convinced that there is definitely something anomalous underlying cold fusion, although they don't have a strong opinion about what that might be. Perhaps 5 percent of the remaining 10 percent -- 0.5 percent in all. An important point here is that the 90 percent in the first category cannot be counted as being persuaded against cold fusion -- they simply don't know anything and would readily acknowledge as much if the matter were brought to their attention. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Ed, I have been without pc all weekend but see that Mark and Jones made a far better response than I could have managed, someone made reference to the Haisch Rhueda paper on inertia which bears heavily on your questions about if this is normal photon radiation . if they are correct than it is not photon radiation. We are talking about the same waveforms that are responsible for gravity and inertia and this is why there is no Farady shielding, everything is permeated at 90 degrees to the physical plane, these waveforms approach and depart from a nonphysical dimension like time winking into and out of existence only as they cross through the Present. I suspect that HUP or jitter is just these virtual particles growing into then contracting out of our 3d ant farm plane and the random displacement of all physical matter from within the tiniest subatomic particles on up in response to these inter dimensional interlopers. According to Puthoff these virtual particles create a pressure that is responsible for the ground state of everything from quarks up to and beyond the periodic table, they form a sea or river, a medium that he believes can be engineered using Casimir geometry with other techniques to concentrate and extend this natural phenomenon we see commonly all around us in the form of colloids like mayonnaise or the stiction we see making it difficult to sort nanotubes. My posit is that we are causing breaks in micro gravity.. cavity QED says the isotropy can be broken at this geometry where the inverse of Casimir boundary spacing cubed can trump the normal square law we experience as denizens of a gravity well in the macro world. When Jones mentioned dynamic Casimir effect in regards to recent evidence using transistor like device called SQUIDS they are effectively moving one of the Casimir boundaries at luminal velocities. In these metal powders or skeletal cats the conjecture is that there are boundaries everywhere and of different sizes, a tapestry of different suppression values that the gas atoms are migrating through with the help of the normally unusable energy called gas motion.. Fran Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more questions. I'm sure all of these issues have been addressed. I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher frequency than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes through a material, the radiation is either absorbed, creating heat in the material, or it passes through without any change in energy or any effect on the material. Your description proposes that a certain size gap blocks a fraction of the radiation coming from a particular direction. In other words, the photons are stopped in the gap and their energy heats the walls of the gap. The other photons pass right through the material without interacting or producing a force. What produces the force? The photons that are captured by the gap pass through the material without interacting until they reach the gap. Only at the gap is their presence felt by the material, but in the form of http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80245.html heat energy. For a force to be felt by the material, the photons must interact and transfer momentum. Does this mean all vacuum photons change direction when passing through a material and the gap simply removes a momentum vector such that a net force remains perpendicular to the gap? If this is the explanation, we have still another assumption - a photon can bounce off an atom without changing its energy (frequency) and in the process transfer momentum to the atom while the photon goes in a different direction. Normally, a photon interacts with an electron, sending it in a different direction but at the same time ionizing the atom to which the electron was attached. Why does this process not occur when the vacuum photons interact with matter? Ed Storms
[Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Press release http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect and direct report download: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8 Congrats to Rossi. - Brad
[Vo]:Compact Reactor by Pharis E. Williams
Compact Reactor: Pharis E. Williams Abstract. Weyl's Gauge Principle of 1929 has been used to establish Weyl's Quantum Principle (WQP) that requires that the Weyl scale factor should be unity. It has been shown that the WQP requires the following: quantum mechanics must be used to determine system states; the electrostatic potential must be non-singular and quantified; interactions between particles with different electric charges (i.e. electron and proton) do not obey Newton’s Third Law at sub-nuclear separations, and nuclear particles may be much different than expected using the standard model. The above WQP requirements lead to a potential fusion reactor wherein deuterium nuclei are preferentially fused into helium nuclei. Because the deuterium nuclei are preferentially fused into helium nuclei at temperatures and energies lower than specified by the standard model there is no harmful radiation as a byproduct of this fusion process. Therefore, a reactor using this reaction does not need any shielding to contain such radiation. The energy released from each reaction and the absence of shielding makes the deuterium-plus-deuterium-to-helium (DDH) reactor very compact when compared to other reactors, both fission and fusion types. Moreover, the potential energy output per reactor weight and the absence of harmful radiation makes the DDH reactor an ideal candidate for space power. The logic is summarized by which the WQP requires the above conditions that make the prediction of DDH possible. The details of the DDH reaction will be presented along with the specifics of why the DDH reactor may be made to cause two deuterium nuclei to preferentially fuse to a helium nucleus. The presentation will also indicate the calculations needed to predict the reactor temperature as a function of fuel loading, reactor size, and desired output and will include the progress achieved to date. http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/CompactReactor.html pdf format: http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/pdf/Compact%20Reactor.pdf Harry
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. This is an unequivocal statement about the energy balance of the Hot Cat. The authors: - Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University - Evelyn Foschi - Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University - Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). Eric
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
Re: Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). The number of involved scientists mentioned were high, somewhere around 15. In the paper, there are various other people mentioned in the acknowledgements section. These could be counted as involved scientists but not authors. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources. This is an unequivocal statement about the energy balance of the Hot Cat. The authors: - Giuseppe Levi, Bologna University - Evelyn Foschi - Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, Uppsala University - Hanno Essén, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Seven authors altogether (I think I remember hearing a larger number at some point). Eric -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
