that some people said LENR claims do violate laws of thermodynamic made me
fall on my bottom...
it remind me the book of Beaudette about what he call skeptic (in fact
deniers)
page 134 (164) in the box:
summation
*Characteristics of the Scientific Skeptic*
In general, skeptics display the
About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote:
Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising to
look for evidence completely outside of their field ...
This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two
approaches. First they used an
Alain, the phenomenon of LENR itself does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics but some of the explanations do. Apparently, this is a
problem that physicists have. Many of them do not understand or accept
the laws of thermodynamics. Consequently, they waste a lot of time
discussing ideas
Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion.
Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter
would detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they
actually discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they
must have questioned
This is good - but those of us who follow the field closely should be aware
that LENR advocates and practitioners can themselves be blindly skeptical
within the niche, such as when confronted with an explanation or theory
which they do not espouse, or an experimenter who has been rude to them
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
The safest course is to take Garwin and Lewis and the others at their word
and to limit consideration to what was said and written.
If I take them at their word, I am forced to conclude they are incompetent
fools.
Remember that Pons's lawyer sent a
The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did not
correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of neutron
reactions. .
This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and
what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the
Hi, Jed,
That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs.
Who was Magaziner? Ira?
Thanks,
Lawry
On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs
de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Jed,
That was Magaziner's idea, not theirs.
Who was Magaziner? Ira?
Yes. As I recall it was his idea. Martin was not enthusiastic about going,
he later told me.
- Jed
Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and
imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using
imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality
well enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little
relationship to
Dear Ed,
What you say, seems to confirm the idea that CF was discovered many years
too early, before the time when science was prepared to explain it and
technology to develop it and therefore it remained immature, underdeveloped
and underunderstood so many years.
A doctor politicus lady on my
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their imagination
in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the imagination has
infinite possibilities.
Here is a wonderful quote about that:
Perhaps the history of the errors
The theorist is always looking for experimental results to confirm his
reality. That is a situation that is pleasing and conformable.
But when the experiment confronts the theorist with the unexpected and the
disturbing, the theorist must adjust his reality to match what is real.
Quantum
Not too early, Peter. The problem F-P faced would have existed
whenever the discovery was made because the discovery revealed a new
and perviously hidden part of reality. They paid the price of forcing
everyone to see a new phenomenon. That discovery process always causes
problems for the
The problem changes when the discovery is understood and its value
measured?
The Founders have understood their own discovery better than anybody else?
The previously hidden part of reality is better understood today then at
its discovery?
“Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of
On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
The theorist is always looking for experimental results to confirm
his reality. That is a situation that is pleasing and conformable.
But when the experiment confronts the theorist with the unexpected
and the disturbing, the theorist must
I agree Peter, however, a house requires a heap of stones to be
assembled before it can be built. We now have a heap of stones and
various architects are trying to design a house using these stones.
Unfortunately, many of the architects ignore most of the stones and
want to use wood
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Ed that they were brave to believe their own calorimetry,
given the deficit of neutrons. Martin later said, it is the easiest thing
in the world to dismiss your own results; to say 'that must be a mistake'
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL
nuclear reactions make heat. F-P and many people since 1989 see
evidence for a nuclear reaction. That fact alone should have excited
scientists. However, we all were taught that a nuclear reaction is
not influenced by the
You are letting your common sense distort the true vision of reality. It is
difficult to come to a true understanding of what is real using the limited
perception of your senses.
The world of the fish is different from the world of the bird. The world of
water is different from the world of
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and
imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using
imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well
No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is
the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying
to understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any
rule we might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without
knowing the
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear
reactions make heat.
As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from the heat
it produces, and calorimetry remains an excellent method of measuring it.
I do
While what you say is true, Jed, to make detectable heat, a fusion
rate of about 10^9 events/sec would be required. To detect the
radiation, only about 10 events/sec would be needed. Heat is used to
measure radioactive decay, but only when a large amount of the
decaying material is
One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can experience
such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. It just
spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as long as
the condition persists.
This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental
DOE Mentions Technology Behind The Home Nuclear Reactor In Funding
Opportunity
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/01/04/doe-mentions-technology-behind-the-home-nuclear-reactor-in-funding-opportunity/
On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can
experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come
out. It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains
strength as long as the condition persists.
In order to learn the rules, you first have to take a risk and imagine what
the rules might be and this might mean imagining new rules
that conflict with established rules.
Imagination is not undermining the search for an explanation. Dogma about
this or that rule is undermining the search for an
Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and gain
strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of photons
unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the space as the
fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the total
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102568
Actual pictures of this photon process is included in this explanatory
post. The theory of Ni/H type LENR that I support is based on 100% valid
experimentally based nanoplasmonic science.
It could well be different but o
You have the idea right.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and
gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of
photons unless you are suggesting that more and more
This is an interesting way to look at nature. First you make observations of
what is occurring. Then you imagine why this may be so. Finally, you continue
to watch the behavior of the experiment and see that all the observations that
you collect match your imagined process.
I like to
I agree, Harry. However, since what can be imagined is infinite and
some rules have to be accepted, some limitations have to be imposed to
avoid insanity. A creative 10 year old can give you an explanation
for anything, but would you accept the explanation just because it did
not follow
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I agree, Eric, heat is hard to justify and accept. However, ALL nuclear
reactions make heat.
As Martin often pointed out, radioactivity was first detected from the
heat it
LENR technology has suffered from confusion with “cold
fusion”http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-is-Not-Cold-Fusion.shtml,
which has largely been dismissed by the scientific community.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
DOE Mentions Technology Behind The Home
OK, now the question comes up about how many photons can be captured inside
such a tiny space before it self destructs. In normal classical circumstances
the tiny space you speak of would be called a cavity resonator. These have a
Q associated with them that is related to the stored energy
Harry,
I don't want to speak for Axil, but from my understanding it is theorized
that some manner of photonic-BEC can form in the Nano-cavity. I'm not sure
whether it assists fusion or the photons themselves create some
novel variety of EM energy. It relies, in ways, on Kim's BEC cluster
theory.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
LENR technology has suffered from confusion with “cold fusion”, which has
largely been dismissed by the scientific community.
It's encouraging to see that a journalist at Forbes has taken up the LENR
scoop again. This one
It has been experimentally verified that the energy density reached in
these photonic traps reach a high EMF level of 10 to the 15 power watts per
square centimeter before the chemical based detectors used for EMF power
density measurements are destroyed. The experimenters have not found a way
to
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think there has been an actual increase in autism. More cases are
being diagnosed. I think some are not real. Alzheimer's and cancer is
increasing mainly because there is no cure for them and the population is
that is what I have in mind too.
I am quite conservative (sic) about conservation laws.
The more i heard of them, the more I think they are structurally solid
(anyway I may be wrong), because they are expression of symmetries.
It seems TD2 is linked to Heizenberg, and TD1 to gauge equivalence.
I feel it is the manipulation that I describe as history rewritten by the
losers.
instead of admitting they screwed up, they will blame cold fusion...
what ever is the theory, the fact is that the calorimetry was ignored, and
that is a scientific crime. point. end of science here.
2014/1/4 Eric
DOE ARPA-E Funding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#DOE_ARPA-E_Funding
In Jan, 2014 Forbes reported that The Department of Energy included
low energy nuclear reactions—which NASA scientists have said could fuel
home nuclear reactors—among other representative technologies in a $10
ARPA-E selects reviewers based on their knowledge and understanding of the
relevant field and application, their experience and skills, and their
ability to provide constructive feedback on applications.
Is there any mechanism for disqualifying Hot-fusion (Coulomb-bound) reviewers
from
The levels that you list are quite large. If the magnetic fields emanating
from each of the nano antennas were of that magnitude I would be concerned that
they would generate a force against their neighbors that would rip the material
apart. Maybe one day you can explain how these nano sized
Here is some thoughts about how a strong magnetic field can screen charge.
One of the conservation laws is the conservation of isospin in nuclear
reactions.
In 1932, Heisenberg defined that the proton and neutron be considered as
different charge substates of one particle, the Nucleon.
A
the rule about not peeing into the wind.
;-)
Harry
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I agree, Harry. However, since what can be imagined is infinite and some
rules have to be accepted, some limitations have to be imposed to avoid
insanity. A creative
Dear Friends,
My friend AXIL, an admirable front-line physicist thinker, has written
comments to my 2014 New Year message. Please read them. I liked the
comments so much that I have asked him to write a guest editorial
for my Blog. Here it is:
48 matches
Mail list logo
