RE: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
Yes. Sweden is the rumor for testing - which does not come from Lewan, but his book indicates that he knows more than he is free to tell. Uppsala has definite motivation, given the peer criticism of the prior report. They would like to clear their name with a better report. Another rumor today is that the level of gain (COP) is closer to Mizuno than to Rossi's prior demos. Those prior demos were criticized for measurement technique (wet steam etc). Many observers hope the COP is at least 4. If it is 2.5 instead of 4, then we will not be looking at moving to commercialization on a rapid pace. From: Alan Fletcher Sweden, most likely Uppsala.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
If the Rossi has the proper control of his device established and positive thermal feedback of adequate gain is achieved then the COP should not be an issue. It will be difficult to control the system if thermal delays dominate the feedback timing or other variables complicate the transfer of heat away from the core. In these situations I would be more concerned about keeping the COP low enough to avoid thermal runaway. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 10:22 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi long term test Yes. Sweden is the rumor fortesting – which does not come from Lewan, but his book indicates that heknows more than he is free to tell. Uppsala has definite motivation, given the peercriticism of the prior report. They would like to clear their name with abetter report. Another rumor today isthat the level of gain (COP) is closer to Mizuno than to Rossi’s priordemos. Those prior demos were criticized for measurement technique (wet steametc). Many observers hope theCOP is at least 4. If it is 2.5 instead of 4, then we will not be looking atmoving to commercialization on a rapid pace. From:Alan Fletcher Sweden, most likely Uppsala.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
From: David Roberson If the Rossi has the proper control of his device established and positive thermal feedback of adequate gain is achieved then the COP should not be an issue. Dave, Doesn’t that assume that the source of the gain is nuclear? If the source of gain is not “nuclear” (per se), then we must ask - what if the gain is limited to a level which is a low multiple of what we have heretofore defined as “chemical”? Control, and positive feedback are very important, but now there is an upper limit. Yes, we can argue that any gain should allow infinite COP if it can be fed back in toto, but thermal feedback may not be adequate to provide P-in when there is a ceiling on the net energy available from the underlying reaction. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
Jones and Dave-- I think the control is a two parameter issue, temperature and external magnetic field strength. An increased temperature prevents a large scale excursion of the reaction, but does not control the situation on a nano scale. The external magnetic field, H, induces an internal magnetic field, B, in the nano Ni particles and initiates a local reaction. The temperature increases and changes the magnetic susceptibility of the Ni and reduces the B field accordingly. The reaction is not too fast to be controlled, since there is a time constant with the increase and decrease of the nano B fields as a function of the changing H field and temperatures. A key parameter in the time constant is the size of the Ni nano particles. Ahern noted that less than 3 nm is bad because of run away reaction. The smaller the size the quicker the reaction responds to a changing magnetic field. Pulsing the H field is important in limiting the reaction. I think that National Instruments helped Rossi work out the dynamics and control of the reactor. NI would be perfect for such a task. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 7:51 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi long term test From: David Roberson If the Rossi has the proper control of his device established and positive thermal feedback of adequate gain is achieved then the COP should not be an issue. Dave, Doesn’t that assume that the source of the gain is nuclear? If the source of gain is not “nuclear” (per se), then we must ask - what if the gain is limited to a level which is a low multiple of what we have heretofore defined as “chemical”? Control, and positive feedback are very important, but now there is an upper limit. Yes, we can argue that any gain should allow infinite COP if it can be fed back in toto, but thermal feedback may not be adequate to provide P-in when there is a ceiling on the net energy available from the underlying reaction. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
Well, this is not a rumor. It's just a trivial observation that Rossi does not do anything serious that is not with that Swedish group. 2014-04-11 11:21 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Yes. Sweden is the rumor for testing -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Poser: does the bare proton: H- (hydrogen cation) aka nascent hydrogen possess anomalous chemical energy, and is that energy related to why is it neutralized so quickly? With the Rossi report coming up soon (we hope) and the likelihood that it will show apparent gain above chemical, but without gamma radiation or other indicia of a nuclear reaction, we need to more closely examine the magnitude of the real chemical energy available from hydrogen manipulation. It is not as clear-cut as you think, at least not when using water as the physical model for hydrogen redox reactions. The following presents the case for an apparent and natural COP of around 2.4 (6.8 eV instead of 2.85) being consistent with the real upper limit of the chemical energy of nascent hydrogen neutralization via Ps. This is NOT a related explanation to the one Mills gives in his theory, but it may sound similar, since anything to do hydrogen (or positronium) involves Rydberg multiples. It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits to the reality of the Dirac sea. In the case of positronium, the binding energy is 6.8 eV. Mills' theory neglects the important role of positronium - and his view is tied to redundant hydrogen orbitals. However, the best explanation for the rapid (picosecond) neutralization of a free proton in nature is the ubiquity of the Dirac sea of (virtual) positronium. Here is another version of Dirac's field - epola, ps-BEC, ZPF or a host of other names for those who are intimidated by Hotson. http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm Perhaps Rossi will demonstrate a robust version of this curiosity, one that has lurked in redox chemistry for decades going back to Langmuir's torch: which is the possibility that asymmetric gain will be available in special circumstances from sequential free proton formation and recombination. This gain is actually quite similar to chemical energy but higher and non-nuclear. In other words - there is a good argument that the real chemical energy of hydrogen manipulation can be about 2.4 times higher than it seems from combustion, due to an active vacuum and nascent hydrogen neutralization via disruption of the binding energy of Ps (which energy remains in 3-space as a UV photon). This argument will be continued in another post with more detail. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, this is not a rumor. It's just a trivial observation that Rossi does not do anything serious that is not with that Swedish group. True. But last time they came to Italy. Lewan's book describes how Rossi brought a machine to Sweden for a demonstration. It did not work, for the usual reasons. He glued it together at the last minute, and instead of waiting two days, he tried to run it the next day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones That idea may explain heat release, however, such a reaction would not account for the transmutations being seen in Japan and other evidence of new nuclear species. I doubt such a reaction with small amounts of Ps can explain the large energy releases associated with explosive reactions, researchers have incurred. Jones you said: It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits to the reality of the Dirac sea. Is there an energy release from the Dirac sea? What is the coupling from the sea to the Ps transition. Does something happen to cool the environment? Is there any reference concerning the nature of the energy available in a Dirac sea? I am not familiar with this idea. Where does the Ps come from in reactions involving D only if the reaction is not nuclear? I am thinking of the Muzino research which produced H from D apparently. Finally, as far as I know, spin coupled reactions do not involve gamma radiation, yet I believe they are considered to be nuclear, at least where nuclei are involve. (Spin coupling between electrons is probably not considered nuclear. I do not know about Cooper Pairing of protons.) However spin orbital force interactions are considered nuclear as are transitions in nuclear magnetic resonant states of nuclei. None of these reaction produce gammas or high energy photons. They may involve low energy photons--absorption and emission--as energy states change. You may want to consider some of these issues in your addition of your poser. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:43 AM Subject: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen Poser: does the bare proton: H- (hydrogen cation) aka nascent hydrogen possess anomalous chemical energy, and is that energy related to why is it neutralized so quickly? With the Rossi report coming up soon (we hope) and the likelihood that it will show apparent gain above chemical, but without gamma radiation or other indicia of a nuclear reaction, we need to more closely examine the magnitude of the real chemical energy available from hydrogen manipulation. It is not as clear-cut as you think, at least not when using water as the physical model for hydrogen redox reactions. The following presents the case for an apparent and natural COP of around 2.4 (6.8 eV instead of 2.85) being consistent with the real upper limit of the chemical energy of nascent hydrogen neutralization via Ps. This is NOT a related explanation to the one Mills gives in his theory, but it may sound similar, since anything to do hydrogen (or positronium) involves Rydberg multiples. It is not a violation of conservation of energy, if one admits to the reality of the Dirac sea. In the case of positronium, the binding energy is 6.8 eV. Mills' theory neglects the important role of positronium - and his view is tied to redundant hydrogen orbitals. However, the best explanation for the rapid (picosecond) neutralization of a free proton in nature is the ubiquity of the Dirac sea of (virtual) positronium. Here is another version of Dirac's field - epola, ps-BEC, ZPF or a host of other names for those who are intimidated by Hotson. http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm Perhaps Rossi will demonstrate a robust version of this curiosity, one that has lurked in redox chemistry for decades going back to Langmuir's torch: which is the possibility that asymmetric gain will be available in special circumstances from sequential free proton formation and recombination. This gain is actually quite similar to chemical energy but higher and non-nuclear. In other words - there is a good argument that the real chemical energy of hydrogen manipulation can be about 2.4 times higher than it seems from combustion, due to an active vacuum and nascent hydrogen neutralization via disruption of the binding energy of Ps (which energy remains in 3-space as a UV photon). This argument will be continued in another post with more detail. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Jones-- Thanks for those good fast responses. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The real chemical energy of nascent hydrogen -Original Message- From: Bob Cook That idea may explain heat release, however, such a reaction would not account for the transmutations being seen in Japan and other evidence of new nuclear species. The transmutation seen by Piantelli, Mizuno and many others in Japan is real, but miniscule - in the comparative picture. We are talking about a few thousand counts over hours - which is sub-femtogram level. Tiny levels of transmutation are expected - and trace levels of gamma - but this is a side-effect of the occasional higher energy annihilation reaction, which is many orders of magnitude too low to account for excess heat. I doubt such a reaction with small amounts of Ps can explain the large energy releases associated with explosive reactions, researchers have incurred. Why do you say small amounts? The vacuum is teeming with quantum foam, according to Wheeler, Dirac and other who have looked into this. The energy which can be seen, in a large release, would be double an explosion of hydrogen in oxygen. (but non nuclear) Is there an energy release from the Dirac sea? Well, there is a long line of reported gain from nascent hydrogen, starting with Langmuir. Rossi could be following in this progression, and would be further evidence. It will be interesting to see what conclusion the Swedes come up with. What is the coupling from the sea to the Ps transition. A bare proton is almost one dimensional - at the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space (Dirac's term) and it grabs the electron from Ps, leaving the positron in reciprocal space. The UV photon (6.8 eV) comes along with the electron some of the time. The coupling is electrostatic and by proximity at the interface of 3-space to another dimension. Does something happen to cool the environment? This would be expected in some circumstances, and Ahern's finding of anomalous cooling would be an example. In that particular case energy from 3-space transfers into reciprocal space. Is there any reference concerning the nature of the energy available in a Dirac sea? I am not familiar with this idea. Oh yes. Very good references. The cited URL will lead you to many others. http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/05/diracs_equation_and_the_sea_of.html Don Hotson's papers are highly recommended. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
as an IT engineer, I know that pathology and we are trained to avoid that irresistible tendency for innovative guys... patrick de gayardon died from this last minute change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_de_Gayardon I'm lucky not (yet) to work on life support application. However I know what is an epic failure for a demo. the developer, the innovator, should never be the boss, or failure should be acceptable. 2014-04-11 18:51 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, this is not a rumor. It's just a trivial observation that Rossi does not do anything serious that is not with that Swedish group. True. But last time they came to Italy. Lewan's book describes how Rossi brought a machine to Sweden for a demonstration. It did not work, for the usual reasons. He glued it together at the last minute, and instead of waiting two days, he tried to run it the next day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
Alain, I am glad that after reading the book it is obvious for us all that one cannot just solve the theory or the experiment. It does not lead to any result. What makes me hopeful is that people with money has come in to the picture. Investors mostly understand the need for a complete organization. It is possible that grants (I have no experience) are given only because of scientific / theoretical technology merits, then that is another proof of that government should be forbidden to make business decision as they are useless. I can guarantee that as soon as there is a way to communicate the obstacles and the possibilities with LENR ther will be a long line of investors on the stage. I hope Rossi will be forced to make such data available and that will help the whole 'industry'. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: as an IT engineer, I know that pathology and we are trained to avoid that irresistible tendency for innovative guys... patrick de gayardon died from this last minute change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_de_Gayardon I'm lucky not (yet) to work on life support application. However I know what is an epic failure for a demo. the developer, the innovator, should never be the boss, or failure should be acceptable. 2014-04-11 18:51 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, this is not a rumor. It's just a trivial observation that Rossi does not do anything serious that is not with that Swedish group. True. But last time they came to Italy. Lewan's book describes how Rossi brought a machine to Sweden for a demonstration. It did not work, for the usual reasons. He glued it together at the last minute, and instead of waiting two days, he tried to run it the next day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
There is a lot of great stuff in this book. The account is accurate as far as I know. You never can tell where the truth lies with Rossi, but this is pretty much what I have heard from various people. Lewan downplays the severity of some of the incidents, such as NASA's visit to Rossi. The parts about Rossi's long-suffering friends and supporters are true. The parts about long-suffering, heroic Jim Dunn are true. The book makes Mike Melich and me look bad in places with regard to Defkalion. We were too trusting. Oh well. They had some impressive people and equipment at first. They seemed promising. As far as I can tell, they are are now a farce. The impressive people left, 'cause they weren't paid. It's that money thing again, and the old credit rating problem. Hot air is no substitute for cash. Mats Lewan has guts publishing this, and his earlier reports. He must have been attacked by many people. The parts about the 1-MW reactor test are well known to readers here. Lewan describes his own sense of confusion at the fact that the test was inconclusive. Even when the test was underway I could see it was yet another inconclusive non-demonstration. I think I know why Rossi usually does unconvincing demonstrations. Lewan quotes me speculating about this, and then he says Rossi confirmed what I said. From the book: Jed: Edison knew he had solved the problem, but he had a lot of work left, [so] more intellectual property [was] there for the taking. Low hanging fruit. He did not want his competition to take him too seriously. On the other hand, he needed more big bucks from the investors and banks. It was a delicate balancing act: how to keep up the excitement while triggering the lowest possible level of serious competition. Rossi is doing exactly the same thing. I recognize that is his strategy. He is hardly keeping it secret. Countless inventors and companies have done this. It does not mystify me at all. To people unfamiliar with business it looks crazy. Lewan: I asked Rossi about the matter and he replied bluntly that it was true. (Actually, I knew this was his strategy because Rossi and I discussed the matter and he sort-of, kind-of, grudgingly acknowledged it is. Mike McKubre also recognized this. As I said, it wasn't like Rossi was keeping it a secret.) This strategy is getting old! Still it seems to have worked for him. He has financial backing now, and yet 99.99% of the world thinks he is a crazy or a scam artist. I hope the Swedes have done a careful, totally convincing job this time. It is about time for this strategy to come to an end. Edison eventually drew it to close with the incandescent light. He used the most effective method imaginable. He puts lights up in his his workshop in Menlo Park, NJ, and strung them on polls outside. People started coming from miles around to see them in the winter evenings and nights. It must have been an extraordinary sight for people who had never seen anything as bright as an electric light. The railroads had to schedule extra trains from New York to accommodate the crowds. The naysayers finally shut up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
As an engineer, I would love to take on that product challenge. I am moving to a cold climate area. Cold climate heat pumps still only produce a COP of about 2-3 and have a lot of control to keep the exchanger from becoming frozen (frequent defrost cycles). It is a split unit that still needs an outside unit and inside unit with plumbing between. Yet these heat pumps are still the lowest cost heat means, unless you chop your own wood and burn it in a wood stove. The heat pumps are cheaper than pellet wood heating. I can imagine a home/industrial heater for these climes where a COP=2.5 would be a highly competitive product for heating. It could be as easy to install as putting it on the floor and plugging it into the wall with no outside plumbing or ventilation required, just a thermostat. This winter, the cost LPG skyrocketed due to shortage of supply. Farmers were hit with early winter temperatures and used the gas to heat their silos to dry their corn. Even as the LPG costs come down, a 2.5 COP LENR heater would be 1/3 the cost of LPG heating. There are a lot of industrial applications where high temperature heating is required and no heat pumps apply today - ovens in particular for everything from soldering, ceramic firing, concrete calcining, aluminum making, wood kiln drying, etc - all within the temperatures of the HotCat. And they use huge amounts of heat to the point that their bottom line depends on the cost of heat. Once there is a business/product at COP=2.5, I don't think high COP is that far behind. Long operation at COP=2.5 proves LENR is real and depending on the duration could prove it is nuclear or at least a real but unknown highly desirable phenomenon. Investment will spring up everywhere. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If it is 2.5 instead of 4, then we will not be looking at moving to commercialization on a rapid pace.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
No proof and no telling of who were those people. Only the frustrated tantrum. Also, Edison knew how to issue a patent. Rossi is lost. 2014-04-11 16:42 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: The impressive people left, 'cause they weren't paid. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
There are some controversies described in the book which strike me as comical. They remind me of debates over whether Shakespeare wrote his plays or whether it was another man of the same name. For example, Lewan describes Rossi's claim that he had a factory in Florida where they manufactured components for the 1 MW reactor. Some people say he did not have a factory because they could not find it. Rossi claims he disguised it by making it look like it was manufacturing some conventional equipment. The truth or falsity of this claim does not make the slightest bit of difference. Maybe the factory was not in Florida. Maybe it was in New England or Poland, or Palmero. Who cares where it is? Here is what we know. Someone manufactured more than 50 of those square reactors that went into the 1 MW reactor. Rossi could not have made them by himself. He is a workaholic but even he could not pull that off. Somebody, somewhere made all that equipment. I do not see why it matters who it was or where they live. I do not see why he would lie about the factory being in Florida. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No proof and no telling of who were those people. I know who they were. I have photos of them and their equipment. I have not finished the book. I do not know if it describes the people at Defkalion. Only the frustrated tantrum. By who? Also, Edison knew how to issue a patent. Rossi is lost. That's true. Rossi sure does not know how to apply for a patent! (Apply; not issue. The Patent Office issues.) For his sake, I hope he managed to write a better application while this one was pending. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Lewan book
From: Jed Rothwell I do not see why he would lie about the factory being in Florida. Let me guess. No business license so competitors cannot find him, no OSHA to deal with, undocumented workers, wages paid out of pocket, taxes avoided, corners cut . the list goes on. The underground economy merges into RD . that kinda sums it up.
Re: [Vo]:Problem with glare at Ivanpah CSP plant
I was a circuit designer, starting with tubes, then transistors and then programmable gate arrays. Didn't break into gates until long after I wanted to. As a teen, was dabbling in relay logic, telescope design, astronomy, geology, theology, fossils... Now am into peak oil. Greatly recommend The Archdruid's Report. Ol' Bab (old Babcock - I coined this in my 40s, now look at me) PS Am glad you got to see my post: I haven't seen it yet. Maybe only you has seen it. On 4/10/2014 4:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: OlBab-- What kind of engineer were you? Older Bob? - Original Message - *From:* David L Babcock mailto:olb...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Problem with glare at Ivanpah CSP plant It is a little more complex. There is a distance from the (presumed flat) mirror such that the angular extent of the mirror is about the same as that of the sun (1/2 deg). From there out the intercepted flux decreases, by the square of the distance. From the birds view, at that distance it sees the whole sun fill the mirror. Any farther out the image is bigger than the mirror -only part of the sun is supplying heat. If the mirrors are curved, then each mirror will have a hot focal point, but not super hot: again it is limited by the angular extent of the sun and the mirror. A ideal mirror will project an image of the sun on the boiler (or bird, if at focus), and the intensity is that of sunlight multiplied by the square of the ratio of the two angular extents. Maybe 10 or 20 to 1? WAG here. As Bob points out, the nimbus effect strongly suggests that the designers were aware of a possible problem and made sure mirrors in standby don't all point at a single point, or even parallel. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I do not see why he would lie about the factory being in Florida. Let me guess. No business license so competitors cannot find him, no OSHA to deal with, undocumented workers, wages paid out of pocket, taxes avoided, corners cut ... the list goes on. The underground economy merges into RD ... that kinda sums it up. Ha, ha! I like that: The underground economy merges into RD. That would fit the pattern of Rossi's earlier ventures with Petrodragon. That's the Italian way to do business. Sure, the factory could be anywhere. My point is that it had to be somewhere, not nowhere. So who cares where? - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The Video: Dr, Ahern does not yet understand.
If he use a alkali metal he got a non metallic hydride, not useful for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:57:50 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Axil, I like your theory as far as linkage between the nano and micro scale using SPP but am not convinced the SPP is the power source. The power source is dipole motion in the micro-particle. This particle is sized to be resonant with the operating temperature of the reactor. The dipole vibrations caused by the ambient temperature of the reactor produces maximum electron oscillation. This electron motion is an alternating current that flows back and forth across the micro-particle. The nanowire provides a 1 dimensional superconducting path for the dipole current to accumulate at the tip of the nanowire. this super current accumulates electrons at the nanowire tips in the fractional mega amp range. Nanowire coating on the surface of the micro-particle is a critical power concentration mechanism. This nanowire power concentration is what makes LENR+ go. Why does SPP have the potential for over unity? The extreme curvature at the tips of nanowire produces a vortex of SPPs to develop where the boson nature of the SPP makes possible extreme concentration of a EMF soliton. This soliton produces a anapole magnetic field that gets strong enough to produce pions through vacuum breakdown. Hydrogen rydberg matter is attracted to these nanowire tips that further increase the EMF power application because of the extreme curvature related to the very small size of these nanoparticles. Larger nanoparticles also amplify the EMF concentration of the vortex formed at and around the tips of the wire in a zero loss dark mode energy transfer mechanism. Wouldn't it be far likelier that you are setting the stage for a self assembled Maxwellian demon to exploit the known HUP energies at the end of these hairs? The geometrical confinement being one side of the vice and this SPP linkage to the moving ions being the other side it accepts and accumulates energy from the gas motion in contradiction to COE which claims this energy of gas motion can not be exploited..and admittedly a single gas atom in our macro isotropy can not but I am convinced this isotropy breaking geometry and your linkage demonstrates the potential for a real world demon that self assembles and is the root bootstrap energy that initiates these anomalies. Fran There is a positive feedback mechanism that takes the gamma energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen present in the Rydberg crystals and adds that to the energy content of the vortex based soliton at the tips of the nanowire. This optical nano-cavity down shifts this gamma energy into the extreme ultraviolet range and through power reincorporation makes the amplitude of the SPP soliton and the associated magnetic field produced by the soliton even stronger over time. FROM: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com [1]] SENT: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 3:08 PM TO: vortex-l SUBJECT: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The Video: Dr, Ahern does not yet understand. Ahern is correct in stating that the magic particle size is very small; 3 to 15 nanometers in diameter. This type of particle is the business end of the reaction in the same way the sharp tip of an electrode is where the energy of a spark is concentrated and amplified. But other size particles are required to get magnetic field strength up. The particle size produce by low melting point metals also must be supplied in the size particle mix. This is what Rossi is producing with his secret sauce addition. Yes, he adds a low melting point alkali metal to his reaction as a power amplifier. This type particle acts as a step up transformer coil where power is concentrated into a high voltage capacitive discharge. But the most important particle size is the 5 micron particle covered with nano hair. This particle is the power house of the reaction. This particle provides the receiving antenna for the SPP pumping generated from the mouse component of the reactor. You can think of this large particle as the Cat. The Mouse produces dipole oscillations in the large body of this jumbo particle where the SPP are born. The power produced by this huge particle is feed down the nano-hair covering to their sharp tips at tremendous power amplification. This dipole power produced in this micro particle feeds the step up power amplification process that occurs in the smaller diameter particle assemblages down the particle size chain to those magic 2 nanometer particles. Ahern does not understand this power concentration system and has only seen limited magnetic power produce by his particles because of this lack of this understanding. Links: -- [1] mailto:janap...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
2014-04-11 16:58 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I know who they were. I have photos of them and their equipment. Lier. By who? You - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Hydrobetatron newsletter
This comes to me periodically. It is in Italian and I do not know what to make of it. Anyway, here is the archive including the April edition. http://www.hydrobetatron.org/archivio-newsletters.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I know who they were. I have photos of them and their equipment. Lier. By who? Read the book and you will see. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Jed, I understand that you are well informed about Rossi and Defkalion. I am glad that you confirm what I read on and between the lines. Here are a few comments. Let me say I think you nailed it when you said he is italian. I would say he is a very unusual Italian as he is hard working. That there is no border between the truth and a good story that is just as it is. They say we have the government we deserve and you just have to look upon the Italian government to understand. (Yes, people look upon the US government also.) I do not think you have to apologize for misjudging Defkalion. One has at least to believe that people who claim something are telling the truth. Another thing is that one should be careful to invest before enough is confirmed.That is a hard balance as if you invest in due diligence you have to retract, not the easiest either. I think (with no inside info) that Defkalion 'received' enough information to believe they could just as well perform the job without AR. Unfortunately the information was only partly correct and even if the base information was right there are things in any idea that only exists in the head of the creator. I do not think one can steal ideas with a good ROI. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-11 16:58 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I know who they were. I have photos of them and their equipment. Lier. By who? You - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Hi all I posted some of this earlier but I think people missed it as I posted it with different heading to every one else in the thread. I particularly want people to pay attentions as to why I think Rossi's patent is in point of fact a perfect patent trap, set to succeed at the MOMENT OF MARKET PENETRATION so as to prevent trade secrets being leaked while ensuring Rossi has proof of priority of art for future legal battles. People seem to have missed the fact the patent office have said Rossi's patent will succeed without reservation if he shows a working product, this means Rossi's product goes live within six months from the date the patent was put in abeyance. On the matter of Rossi's business strategy. I suggest people read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. Like any good business strategy Rossi's business strategy involves multiple layers each is expected to be defeated but the overall strategy is designed to win. The first strategy is secrecy and deception. Until the plan for exploitation is in play. This is a basis of any great strategy. So Rossi gives out the occasional red herring and does not allow people to inspect the process too closely. Trade Secrets and NDA's are a big plank in this strategy. So when a certain blogger attempted to discover the Rossi process by taking equipment in to Rossi's lab that would have compromised the security of Rossi's operation he threw them out much to that persons chagrin, as he thought he was part of the in-crowd. Rossi also threw out a partner who had connections to the blogger. The blogger then started writing anti Rossi postings in order to delay Rossi's move to exploitation. And when a partner was found to be not working as a partner should they too got dropped. The patent(s) also forms part of this, as others said Rossi's patent has failed but the failure is one designed to ensure the patent succeeds! AT THE MOMENT OF MARKET PENETRATION! In order for Rossi's patent to succeed all Rossi has to do is show the working plant being used. If that is done within the 6 month period the patent automatically succeeds. Rossi's patent lawyers know this. And the patent office stated it. This will be the first of Rossi's patents. Then Rossi built up his alliances. For a strategy to win in an environment of multiple stronger foes one must form alliances, either with one of the foes, or with those external to the sphere you wish to enter who will provide the backing needed to launch the strategy so that they too may enter this particular market. This Rossi has achieved through a mixture of licensing and finally sale of the core technology to a chief partner who he trusts. The trust is probably backed up with fail safes and lawyers. ;) In the meantime Rossi's tech team have been banking trade secrets to turn in to lots of small future patents, each of these is another plank in the legal battles to come, it is something they will continue to do for decades. The moment of market penetration. The next phase of Rossi's strategy is a controlled thrust into the market. This is to enable initial market penetration while ensuring a degree of veiling of the full plan and while maintain a degree of trade secrets for as long as possible, this is a reactive strategy that Rossi knows will inevitably fail and he accepts that. Ideally such a strategy is achieved in ways that do not hint at the true strategy and feed the foe's assessment of your intentions, look the D Day deception plan. Market exploitation By this phase Rossi's patent already applies and the legal battles begin, this requires big pockets, this is what the secret backers of Cherokee provide. The whole idea here is to slow down the opposition while Rossi's team stay ahead in terms of technological upgrades each with their own patent. At this point other manufactures will enter the market but Rossi has already established licensees in multiple territories, they will agree exploitation paths with multiple governments that will enact laws that will also help Rossi; they will do this to get early access because those countries that don't will be behind the curve. Rossi recognises nations will want their own version for security and that they will legally take it if they are not given it. So Rossi will trade that early access for that protection. Those in power will then distribute the local licenses to those who will pay for their post executive retirement plan of, 1000 seat 1,000 dollar a ticket 200 date international book tour dinners, that the company sends their staff to and claims back from tax as training expense. With additional places on the boards of a charities, international bodies or think tanks that each pay 100,000 plus a year. To be followed by board positions on subsidiaries and partner/client companies. I think that is how this political stuff works. Brand power. Rossi will by this time have achieved a brand power that the recent Mats Lewan book hints at. That brand power is what will mean people
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Of course, I will read it. You are also throwing a tantrum, nevertheless. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: People seem to have missed the fact the patent office have said Rossi's patent will succeed without reservation if he shows a working product, this means Rossi's product goes live within six months from the date the patent was put in abeyance. In order for Rossi's patent to succeed all Rossi has to do is show the working plant being used. If that is done within the 6 month period the patent automatically succeeds. Rossi's patent lawyers know this. . . . That is not true. The patent is invalid now and will remain invalid, because it does not teach how to replicate. A patent is automatically invalid if it cannot be used by a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to replicate. And the patent office stated it. Not as far as I know, it didn't. Rossi might demonstrate a cold fusion powered moon rocket tomorrow but that will have no bearing on his patent. A patent MUST reveal the technical secret, or it is invalid. Maybe Rossi has another, valid patent in the works. This one is a failure. David French said so, and he is an expert. Heck, even I could see it does not show to replicate, and I know little about patents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, I will read it. You are also throwing a tantrum, nevertheless. No, I am not. That is only happening in your imagination. You need to get a grip. Also, you need to stop calling people liars here. That is not acceptable in this forum. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
So, is it OK to accuse DGT of anything without providing any names, photos? You just say you know. And I am not calling people liars, just you. That's because you should be the first to know how fragile cold fusion is, but you are shamelessly badmouthing a company that may really change world. In such a small community, you do have a voice, you are known to be informed. But, note, you always give information, you translated many things from Japanese groups, you host a library. This gives you a lot of credit. So, people will do listen to you. But since you are doing such a bad view of defkalion, without saying names **explicitly**, in a forum where your posts can be found easily on Google, you are indeed doing a disservice to the world, just for the sake of your vanity. 2014-04-11 20:23 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, I will read it. You are also throwing a tantrum, nevertheless. No, I am not. That is only happening in your imagination. You need to get a grip. Also, you need to stop calling people liars here. That is not acceptable in this forum. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The Video: Dr, Ahern does not yet understand.
Lithium is another secret sauce candidate. From your reference, LiH decomposes at 1,000C. The Mouse must attain a minimum temperature that reaches at least 1,000C. After the heat pulse of the mouse, then lithium, hydrogen, and LiH dust particles would have been produced at the termination of the Mouse's heat pulse. *Potassium hydride*, KH, is the inorganic compound of potassium and hydride. It is a white solid, although commercial samples appear gray. As a secret sauce, potassium hydride operates at a lower temperature than LiH. KH decomposes at 400C. The mouse must only attain a minimum temperature that reaches at least 400C. Rossi said that he tried various chemical combinations of his secret sauce and used the one that worked best. Now that he is using a hydride to provide hydrogen to his system. If you knew the minimum startup temperature of his reactor, you could use that value to deduce the correct hydride based secret sauce that he is now using. The hydrogen release temperature is the major pacing factor now in secret sauce performance.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, is it OK to accuse DGT of anything without providing any names, photos? I am not accusing them of anything. They themselves announced they were closing down operations in Greece, years ago. One or two of their people moved to Canada. The rest of the staff quit. They said they could not get funded in Greece, so they had to close down the lab there. THEY said that, not me. They said they hoped to get funding in Canada. Obviously, they did not get it, because they still have no employees. They had some kind of facility in Italy which they used during the ICCF17 demo. I do not know about that one. The one I know about was in Greece. They told Lewan they spend 7 million Euros there. It was an impressive lab. And I am not calling people liars, just you. No one is calling anyone a liar! I am repeating what Defkalion announced in their press release, that the lab was closing down. That's because you should be the first to know how fragile cold fusion is, but you are shamelessly badmouthing a company that may really change world. I do not see how they can change the world. They have two non-technical people, no money, not a single paper, and apparently no product. Many technical experts visited them, as described in the book. As far as I know, not a single one of those experts saw a convincing test. Most of them said the calorimetry did not work. If they have a convincing test done by an outside expert, they should publish it. They promised to do this years ago. They themselves are holding back all of the evaluations under NDAs that they themselves insisted on. If they have a positive report they could dissolve the NDA and publish it any time. In my opinion, until they publish an independent evaluation, they have no credibility. They have never published ANYTHING technical. Not even a calibration curve. They do not get a free pass. We do not help the cause of cold fusion by giving credibility to people who have done nothing to deserve it. People who do not publish scientific data themselves, or allow scientists to examine and freely publish their findings. Rossi is no scientist. His own tests are inexcusably sloppy. But he allowed the people from Elforsk to test his machine, and he let them publish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
This is not true. That's what I can say. And why are you calling Peter Gluck and Yianni's son a nobody? 2014-04-11 22:37 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Obviously, they did not get it, because they still have no employees. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This is not true. That's what I can say. And why are you calling Peter Gluck and Yianni's son a nobody? Peter Gluck is retired as far as I know. He told me he is too old to travel. He is not working in a lab for Defkalion, that's for sure. I have never heard of Yianni's son. Is he working in a lab? I guess they have 3 employees. I don't honestly know how many they have, but the people who have visited them in Canada tell me there are two people and no lab. Perhaps they have a lab. Perhaps they have wonderful results. I am saying that I have not seen any results or labs, and I do not know anyone who has seen them. There is nothing in Lewan's book. If you, Daniel Rocha, know about a paper, or a lab, or some wonderful test result, please tell us! Stop talking about me. Tell us what you know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Oh, you raised the question! Tell me the name of those who complained about failed tests! 2014-04-11 22:51 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Stop talking about me. Tell us what you know. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Jed: Edison knew he had solved the problem, but he had a lot of work left, [so] more intellectual property [was] there for the taking. Low hanging fruit. He did not want his competition to take him too seriously. On the other hand, he needed more big bucks from the investors and banks. It was a delicate balancing act: how to keep up the excitement while triggering the lowest possible level of serious competition. Rossi is doing exactly the same thing. I recognize that is his strategy. He is hardly keeping it secret. Countless inventors and companies have done this. It does not mystify me at all. To people unfamiliar with business it looks crazy. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander. How does Jed know that Defkalion isn't playing the same low profile game? With the world's major intelligence agencies watching them, it's smart to get as small as possible? Maybe here too Jed is just a tool in this Defkalion master plan. Jed is always very short on details and is seldom open at first he just states his opinion as true and says trust me. Name names. Give us every detail. Put a stake through the heart of Defkalion or stop the Joe McCarthy impersonation. Getting the real facts out of Jed is like pulling teeth. Anybody else that has Defkalion facts to state then wet Jed's appetite for revelation. So justify your slamming of Defkalion in public. Justify your assertions or if you can't, you may also be at risk of being an another tool of Defkalian's maskirovka. Tell us what you know.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, you raised the question! Tell me the name of those who complained about failed tests! See the book. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel, Calling Jed a Liar and then claiming he is ...throwing a tantrum over the DGT matter is, IMO, not winning you many converts. Quite frankly, some of your recent posts strike me as possessing an emotionally charged need on your part to play the role of an advocate for DGT's questionable business tactics, as perceived by some on this forum. Personally, I don't know enuf about DGT to feel I can make a judgment call on the matter, either pro or con. At present, I prefer to stay neutral on the matter while carefully taking into account the insights of individuals like Mr. Rothwell, Beene, and others. All I know is that in my experience, ignoring Jed's insights on most CF matters is not a wise thing to do. The last time I observed such a stalwart display of a defense of an organization or business entity was when I was still a board member on New Energy Time's, headed by Steve Krivit. Krivit really liked the Widdom Larson theory. He strongly defended the individuals an organization promoting that theory. Krivit did so while simultaneously casting doubt on the professional reputation of a certain well respected CF researcher who was recently interviewed on 60 minutes. Obviously, you are not Mr. Krivit. What I'm trying to say here is that I would recommend that you try to find some neutrality on the subject. You are not neutral on this subject. You will eventually lose if don't find neutrality. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What's good for the goose is also good for the gander. How does Jed know that Defkalion isn't playing the same low profile game? With the world's major intelligence agencies watching them, it's smart to get as small as possible? Maybe here too Jed is just a tool in this Defkalion master plan. I doubt any intelligence agency is watching Defkalion or Rossi. Barbara Barnhart at the DIA is trying to get them interested, but she is not having much success as far as I know. You misunderstand the low profile game. The object is to impress your investors and keep the research going while at the same time not bringing too much attention to yourself. If you are forced to close down a lab and fire everyone after spending 7 million Euros, that does not impress your investors or your inner circle. When the lab is closed, you make no more progress. You cannot develop a product. I am sure the lab in Greece is closed. Jed is always very short on details and is seldom open at first he just states his opinion as true and says trust me. Name names. It is not my job to name names. Defkalion has them under NDA. I did not sign an NDA, but I will honor the agreement. Lewan discloses most of them in the book. Others have been discussed here. Do your own homework. It is not my job to make the case for Defkalion, either. If they have positive evaluations, let them publish these evaluations. Why should anyone give them a free pass? Why should we believe them when they have *never published a single scrap of data*? It is ridiculous! No one here would believe Mizuno, Fleischmann or any other academic scientist who has never published a paper. Why should we believe a corporation? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed is always very short on details and is seldom open at first he just states his opinion as true and says trust me. Name names. Give us every detail. Put a stake through the heart of Defkalion or stop the Joe McCarthy impersonation. Getting the real facts out of Jed is like pulling teeth. There are no facts! THERE ARE NO DETAILS! That is my whole point. That's what I have been saying, again and again. Defkalion has published NOTHING. No one paper. Not so much as a calibration curve. They did a video demonstration at ICCF17. Some months later they came out and said the flow rate measurement was not right so the results were questionable. They said that many experts visited them and confirmed the results. They said they would publish these evaluations. That was 2 years ago. Not one evaluation has been published. All of the experts I know who went there are under NDA but they told me a little. They said it did not work. Period. So, the ball is in your court. If you know of *any* evidence that they have something, tell us about it. Anything at all! If you do not know of anything, then why do you believe them? This is science, not religion. You have to see proof. You should not believe a technical claim because a corporation publishes empty public relations blather. It is up to Defkalion to make a scientific case. If you believe them, it is up to you to point to some published scientific information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
No, I am not casting doubt on Jed. On the contrary, I raised the point that due his credibility, making a point which he doesn't have a proof would hurt the future of the world. I would, indeed, call Jed a negative Krivit look alike, an anti DGT. That is, instead of defending a group, he is targeting a single one without proofs and telling things that are not true, such as their lab in Athens being closed or that they don't have a meaningful number of people on Canada. And this is all due his version of the ticket story and the way he *wants* to interpret Yiannis words. You seem to talk as if I had no credibility or experience on cold fusion. This is not true and, indeed, Jed translated from Japanese 2 papers of mine with Akito Takahashi. 2014-04-11 23:07 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: He strongly defended the individuals an organization promoting that theory. Krivit did so while simultaneously casting doubt on the professional reputation of a certain well respected CF researcher who was recently interviewed on 60 minutes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
This is true. But, my mouth is very charyt! 2014-04-11 23:26 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: They said that many experts visited them and confirmed the results. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That is, instead of defending a group, he is targeting a single one without proofs and telling things that are not true, such as their lab in Athens being closed . . . Look, Daniel, get a grip! THEY SAID IT IS CLOSED. Most of the people there left the company. The others moved to Canada. This is what Defkalion themselves announced! Why don't you believe them? This was on Defkalion's own web site. Why do you say it is not true? Why do you accuse me of making it up? You are not making sense. . . . or that they don't have a meaningful number of people on Canada. They had 2 people, and 1 went back to Greece. That is what the people I know who visited them say. They have no lab. If they had a lab, don't you think they would say so, on their website? And this is all due his version of the ticket story and the way he *wants* to interpret Yiannis words. I am not interpreting anything! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Huh, yes. You are deluding yourself. They do have a lab. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf 2014-04-11 23:36 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I am not interpreting anything! - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There are no facts! THERE ARE NO DETAILS! That is my whole point. That's what I have been saying, again and again. Defkalion has published NOTHING. No one paper. Not so much as a calibration curve. In preamble, remember that even some tests that Rossi did were not successful. There is a ton of information in those two papers issued from ICCF-17 and ICCF-18 and the presentations produced by Kim or did you forget or were you even interested in it. There is more that goes into theory than the ability to boil water. What is your opinion on the data that was contained in these sources? There is far more info in those releases than Rossi ever produced, and Rossi's credibility at boing water is equal to or less than that of Defkalion. This is just an exercise in the pear review process. Defkalion has made some amazing scientific claims. If Defkalion is not credible, then their scientifically derived claims are not credible. That lack of credibility extends to all the theories that embrace the validity of those scientific claims and data. It is best to stop or invalidate any false claims sooner rather than later. We must be ruthless in this regard. On the other hand, if the claims are true we must remove the taint around those claims as some as possible. Being so prominent in the field of LENR, Jed, holds a special position as a practitioner of valid an unquestioned peer review. If he can't reveal his hidden sources because of confidentiality, that restriction on information must somehow be overcome in support of immediate scientific truth to advance LENR as a field of science. They did a video demonstration at ICCF17. Some months later they came out and said the flow rate measurement was not right so the results were questionable. They said that many experts visited them and confirmed the results. They said they would publish these evaluations. That was 2 years ago. Why release data on a version of a reactor design that is two versions old. Not one evaluation has been published. All of the experts I know who went there are under NDA but they told me a little. They said it did not work. Period. So, the ball is in your court. If you know of *any* evidence that they have something, tell us about it. Anything at all! If you do not know of anything, then why do you believe them? It is up to Defkalion to make a scientific case. If you believe them, it is up to you to point to some published scientific information. I have been. I have references over a hundred papers in support of a theory that is compatible with the data and the operation behavior of their reactor that Deflation has released. Since these papers do not deal with boiling water, the measuring of said energy production, they obviously hold little interest for you.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. ... you may also be at risk of being an another tool of Defkalian’s maskirovka. Where do you get these idioms and turns of phrase? If there is a good Web site out there, please point me to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
I have been increasing impressed by the stiletto sharp precision of your writing. It would be tragic and a disservice to adulterate it with the home spun platitudes that you referenced. We all must struggle under the restrictions of our limitations. Always try to improve, don't backslide. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What's good for the goose is also good for the gander. ... you may also be at risk of being an another tool of Defkalian's maskirovka. Where do you get these idioms and turns of phrase? If there is a good Web site out there, please point me to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Jed: If you are forced to close down a lab and fire everyone after spending 7 million Euros, that does not impress your investors or your inner circle. I can understand the reason for this. When a company knows little in a specified field, they spend money to hire employees and consultants to fill the specialized knowledge gap. As time goes on, the major players in the company learn all that the outsiders have to teach and if these outsiders now become incompatible with the new expertise required as dictated by the new technical directions required to move the project forward, then why waste any more money on this old outdated static technical expertise. DGT brought Dr. Kim on board of late, and he has made a major contribution, even if I now believe his theory is derivative and emergent from more basic LENR principles; the same limitation as Ed Storms by the way. When the project has gone far into the unknown, almost near the end of the trail technically, few can help anymore, so the employment pool that DGT can hire from is near zero. By now for example, I guess that the real time nuclear reaction product analyzer is completed and is yielding results. That would have had to cost big money to develop. I am interested to see its results. Those results will say a lot about the character of the reaction. But the people needed to develop that machine are no longer needed. DGT must be working on a new version of their reactor just as Rossi is. If there are any new skills that they need to complete that new version of their reactor, they will contract that out to get new expertise but based on Jed's public opinion of them, I don't think that they will confide in Jed about that or anything else at this juncture...if I am any judge of human nature. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: There are no facts! THERE ARE NO DETAILS! That is my whole point. That's what I have been saying, again and again. Defkalion has published NOTHING. No one paper. Not so much as a calibration curve. In preamble, remember that even some tests that Rossi did were not successful. There is a ton of information in those two papers issued from ICCF-17 and ICCF-18 and the presentations produced by Kim or did you forget or were you even interested in it. There is more that goes into theory than the ability to boil water. What is your opinion on the data that was contained in these sources? There is far more info in those releases than Rossi ever produced, and Rossi's credibility at boing water is equal to or less than that of Defkalion. This is just an exercise in the pear review process. Defkalion has made some amazing scientific claims. If Defkalion is not credible, then their scientifically derived claims are not credible. That lack of credibility extends to all the theories that embrace the validity of those scientific claims and data. It is best to stop or invalidate any false claims sooner rather than later. We must be ruthless in this regard. On the other hand, if the claims are true we must remove the taint around those claims as some as possible. Being so prominent in the field of LENR, Jed, holds a special position as a practitioner of valid an unquestioned peer review. If he can't reveal his hidden sources because of confidentiality, that restriction on information must somehow be overcome in support of immediate scientific truth to advance LENR as a field of science. They did a video demonstration at ICCF17. Some months later they came out and said the flow rate measurement was not right so the results were questionable. They said that many experts visited them and confirmed the results. They said they would publish these evaluations. That was 2 years ago. Why release data on a version of a reactor design that is two versions old. Not one evaluation has been published. All of the experts I know who went there are under NDA but they told me a little. They said it did not work. Period. So, the ball is in your court. If you know of *any* evidence that they have something, tell us about it. Anything at all! If you do not know of anything, then why do you believe them? It is up to Defkalion to make a scientific case. If you believe them, it is up to you to point to some published scientific information. I have been. I have references over a hundred papers in support of a theory that is compatible with the data and the operation behavior of their reactor that Deflation has released. Since these papers do not deal with boiling water, the measuring of said energy production, they obviously hold little interest for you.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This is not true. That's what I can say. And why are you calling Peter Gluck and Yianni's son a nobody? I don't think anyone would call Peter a nobody. I'm curious -- what is the name of Yianni's son? Is it Aris Chatzichristos? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
Yes Take a look to an elegant redefinition of scientific fundamentals as apeared in an early paper of Aris Chatzichristos at http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=426 He may be the technical backbone of DGT, the equal to or the belter of Rossi. On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: This is not true. That's what I can say. And why are you calling Peter Gluck and Yianni's son a nobody? I don't think anyone would call Peter a nobody. I'm curious -- what is the name of Yianni's son? Is it Aris Chatzichristos? Eric
