Re: [Vo]:AI is replacing the Boss

[Ian Walker]

No need for the bosses then. AI run firms with no manager, no directors and
no shareholders would be far more efficient and able to out compete human
run companies. The opportunity for worker owned business without management
is a plus not a negative.


On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 05:11, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://futurism.com/amazon-ai-fire-workers
>
> It's a grim glimpse of a future in which AI is your boss — and you're
> disposable.
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

EDITED TO CORRECT AN ARRITHMETIC ERROR!

~600 m not 6000m

By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a
sphere that is approximately 1,440,000 π (pi) meters squared.

Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for
area.

The numbers are very big

Hence why I think the density will be very small.

It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may
increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more
measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be
more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe
dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules
about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's
10ft dense walls option.

Have to so the math.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 November 2016 at 13:13, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a
> sphere that is approximately 144,000,000 π (pi) meters squared.
>
> Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for
> area.
>
> The numbers are very big
>
> Hence why I think the density will be very small.
>
> It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may
> increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more
> measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be
> more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe
> dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules
> about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's
> 10ft dense walls option.
>
> Have to so the math.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 12:49, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> With that size of sphere, 6000m radius, I am guessing, from experience
>> the density of interactions will be only a little above natural background.
>> You need to know the surface area of the sphere. Then the distribution
>> curve for the straight line from the source; then calculate peak and the
>> nominal width of the curve, probably a narrow bell curve.
>>
>> I did some work on ballistics, including terminal ballistics, looking at
>> shrapnel density and effective radius of devices, chance of a hit at a
>> certain range from the explosion. These reduce to a near statistically zero
>> probability on a logarithmic curve as you progress further from the point
>> source. You alter the force of the terminal explosive to produce shrapnel
>> that is still travelling at killing speed at a density of one hit per
>> person size. Having the shrapnel still moving at killing speed beyond this
>> range, is a waste of explosive charge and increase the risk of collateral
>> damage (killing those you had not intended) so you set the charge fit for
>> purpose.
>>
>> The effect we are looking at is similar.
>>
>> But the key thing is that the sphere will describe a circle round the
>> source, varying due to density of objects like walls in the path that is
>> centred on the source. This would be the experiment to do.
>>
>> As I said spread across such a large sphere the density will be very low.
>>
>> Slowing down the particles with dense shielding materials would decrease
>> the size of the sphere at that direction and increase the density of the
>> radiation at the calculable distance from the source. This would give proof
>> of the particle nature.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>> On 14 November 2016 at 04:12, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  mischugnons...
>>>
>>> I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the
>>> research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://restframe.com/
>>>
>>> I have described the  mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and
>>> how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a
>>> monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their
>>> description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's
>>> structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and
>>> whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy,
>>> and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to
>>> catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as
>>> seen by Holmlid.
>>>
>>> Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like
>>> quasiparticle that Ho

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a
sphere that is approximately 144,000,000 π (pi) meters squared.

Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for
area.

The numbers are very big

Hence why I think the density will be very small.

It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may
increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more
measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be
more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe
dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules
about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's
10ft dense walls option.

Have to so the math.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 November 2016 at 12:49, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> With that size of sphere, 6000m radius, I am guessing, from experience the
> density of interactions will be only a little above natural background. You
> need to know the surface area of the sphere. Then the distribution curve
> for the straight line from the source; then calculate peak and the nominal
> width of the curve, probably a narrow bell curve.
>
> I did some work on ballistics, including terminal ballistics, looking at
> shrapnel density and effective radius of devices, chance of a hit at a
> certain range from the explosion. These reduce to a near statistically zero
> probability on a logarithmic curve as you progress further from the point
> source. You alter the force of the terminal explosive to produce shrapnel
> that is still travelling at killing speed at a density of one hit per
> person size. Having the shrapnel still moving at killing speed beyond this
> range, is a waste of explosive charge and increase the risk of collateral
> damage (killing those you had not intended) so you set the charge fit for
> purpose.
>
> The effect we are looking at is similar.
>
> But the key thing is that the sphere will describe a circle round the
> source, varying due to density of objects like walls in the path that is
> centred on the source. This would be the experiment to do.
>
> As I said spread across such a large sphere the density will be very low.
>
> Slowing down the particles with dense shielding materials would decrease
> the size of the sphere at that direction and increase the density of the
> radiation at the calculable distance from the source. This would give proof
> of the particle nature.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 04:12, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  mischugnons...
>>
>> I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the
>> research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here:
>>
>> http://restframe.com/
>>
>> I have described the  mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and
>> how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a
>> monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their
>> description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's
>> structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and
>> whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy,
>> and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to
>> catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as
>> seen by Holmlid.
>>
>> Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like
>> quasiparticle that Holmlid and LENR reactors can created using a
>> catalyst.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their
>> > presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold
>> fusion
>> > as there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs
>> existence,
>> > we’ve been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the
>> > theatrical smoke is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the
>> > outlines of the choir, it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that
>> make
>> > the music of the choir so wonderful it is the combination of them all.
>> > Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony they are singing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM
>> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok.  So you've survive

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

With that size of sphere, 6000m radius, I am guessing, from experience the
density of interactions will be only a little above natural background. You
need to know the surface area of the sphere. Then the distribution curve
for the straight line from the source; then calculate peak and the nominal
width of the curve, probably a narrow bell curve.

I did some work on ballistics, including terminal ballistics, looking at
shrapnel density and effective radius of devices, chance of a hit at a
certain range from the explosion. These reduce to a near statistically zero
probability on a logarithmic curve as you progress further from the point
source. You alter the force of the terminal explosive to produce shrapnel
that is still travelling at killing speed at a density of one hit per
person size. Having the shrapnel still moving at killing speed beyond this
range, is a waste of explosive charge and increase the risk of collateral
damage (killing those you had not intended) so you set the charge fit for
purpose.

The effect we are looking at is similar.

But the key thing is that the sphere will describe a circle round the
source, varying due to density of objects like walls in the path that is
centred on the source. This would be the experiment to do.

As I said spread across such a large sphere the density will be very low.

Slowing down the particles with dense shielding materials would decrease
the size of the sphere at that direction and increase the density of the
radiation at the calculable distance from the source. This would give proof
of the particle nature.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 November 2016 at 04:12, Axil Axil  wrote:

>  mischugnons...
>
> I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the
> research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here:
>
> http://restframe.com/
>
> I have described the  mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and
> how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a
> monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their
> description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's
> structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and
> whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy,
> and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to
> catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as
> seen by Holmlid.
>
> Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like
> quasiparticle that Holmlid and LENR reactors can created using a
> catalyst.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
> > In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their
> > presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold
> fusion
> > as there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs existence,
> > we’ve been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the
> > theatrical smoke is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the
> > outlines of the choir, it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that
> make
> > the music of the choir so wonderful it is the combination of them all.
> > Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony they are singing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the
> > charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.
> In
> > your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
> > even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the
> benefit of
> > longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into
> an
> > understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’,
> > there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his
> contributions
> > to what is becoming a choir.
> >
> >
> >
> > What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion
> that
> > Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe
> > you've been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to
> believe
> > that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to
> > support your position with concrete details.
> >
> >
> >
> > As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
> > neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much
> to
> > do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long
> ago,
> > “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too
> fast.”
> >
> >
> >
> > Alas it's not for my edification that you 

Re: [Vo]:White house report on AI

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to a.ashfield's point on Drones being used as weapons. Russia has
been using PKT armed (Medium machine gun about the same as an M240) Kamov
KA 137 drones since the 1990s.

The US analysts were shocked at the advanced capabilities Russia showed, eg
not their best stuff, in the Ukraine.
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/09/us-army-racing-catch-russia-battle-drones/131936/

Iran is a prolific user of drones and if you remember captured the USA's
most advanced stealth drone several years ago. Hezbolah is known to be
field testing drones for Iran in Syria.

As to ISIS they already used an explosive armed Mini Drone based on an off
the shelf product in Iraq to kill two Kurdish Peshmurga and wound french
soldiers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/10/11/isis-used-an-armed-drone-to-kill-two-kurdish-fighters-and-wound-french-troops-report-says/

NATO special forces in Iraq and Syria now carry an anti drone jammer gun as
standard issue. Problem is such devices are easily defeated, by the
simple expedient of locking on to the jammer signal and riding it to the
source. The US HARM Missile used to take out radar defences is an example.

Net guns don't have the range which limits their abilities. Static Nets
make you static so you loose mobility. You are then looking at
point defence systems like phalanx which can only really work on ships. Or
directed energy weapons again without LENR capabilities you are looking at
ships to carry the required power system

Here is a list publicly known Drone capabilities it doubles every year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles
And it is dwarfed by the real ones you will not hear of.

I worked on advanced military simulations of drone capabilities a decade
back and wrote a report warning then that advanced capabilities in drones
would make all current assets from tanks and aircraft to the soldier in
field to the General and the Executive branch that control them obsolete.

The AI capable drones are the real killer app of drone warfare.

The White House report is just preparing the way for the end of the
military as it currently exists.

Kind Regards walker

On 22 October 2016 at 21:02, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> It could have been written more clearly with half the number of words.
>> They seem to think that displaced workers can be retrained for better
>> jobs, something that seems increasingly unlikely with current graduates
>> dead last in the world in math and science.
>>
>
> U.S. college grads are first in math and science. Perhaps you mean high
> school graduates. That statistic is somewhat suspect because a higher
> fraction of the population graduates from highschool in the U.S. than from
> some other countries.
>
> The same problem confuses a discussion on the effects of funding on
> education. People have noted that New York and Massachusetts spend far more
> per capita on primary education than, say, Alabama or North Dakota even
> taking into account regional consumer cost differences. New York is the
> highest in the world, I think, at $19,818 per child. Yet SAT scores in
> North Dakota are higher than New York, 1799 versus 1463. This is taken as
> proof that spending money on education does not work.
>
> That argument falls apart when you look at the fraction of students taking
> the SAT test. 76% of kids in New York take the test, lowering the average
> score. Only 7% of the kids in Alabama take the SAT, and 2% in North Dakota.
> The top 2% of New York kids are far ahead of the 2% of kids in North Dakota
> who take the SAT. I believe the top 2% of kids from New York probably have
> the highest academic scores in the world. They are ahead of the average
> kids in Japan, and equal to the elite in Japan, in my opinion. I base that
> on my somewhat subjective experience in elite schools and universities in
> New York state and in Japan.
>
> See:
>
> https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_New_York
>
> https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_Alabama
>
> https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_North_Dakota
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

This head cold is slowing me down :)

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Should have included this in the above text.
>
> Source for what "Jed Said"
>
> My apologies.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> In reply to Jed
>>
>> "... as I said. I.H. says
>>
>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>> Penon's."
>>
>> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
>> accept their credentials?
>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
>> was not working?
>> 6) What are their qualifications?
>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>>
>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to
>>>> report something in the future state the source and quote what they say,
>>>> otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to
>>>> back-pedal the fantasy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>>
>>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>>
>>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> In reply to Jed
>
> "... as I said. I.H. says
>
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's."
>
> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
> accept their credentials?
> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
> was not working?
> 6) What are their qualifications?
> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>
> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>>> the fantasy.
>>>
>>
>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>
>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>
>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed

"... as I said. I.H. says

they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
Penon's."

1) Who at I.H. said this?
2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that
you accept their credentials?
3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the
plant was not working?
6) What are their qualifications?
7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?

Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.

Kind Regards walker


On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>> the fantasy.
>>
>
> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>
> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>
> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what I
> say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the first
we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit about
it. I personally think Jed has misunderstood what IH has said perhaps under
the instruction of APCO Worldwide as a spun story to trap the unwary, hence
why I think Jed is back-pedalling the supposed ERV 2.

Having said that from Jed we now know that contrary to what, various
pundits/mouthpieces said that the real ERV exists and they are now
back-pedalling the ERV 2 story.

Why does IH not publish the Real ERV?
We have seen the contract IH signed it clearly states that IH were paying
half the cost of the ER and thus have as much right as Rossi to publish the
Real ERV.

However we now know that IH have had the real ERV, the one they
co-contacted for, with people they agreed to running it.

Instead we have the mouthpieces doing ad-homonym attacks on one of the
person's involved in the ERV almost purely on the grounds he is Italian as
far as I can tell. He was so qualified that IH spent over $10 million on
his advice that they contracted him for but suddenly now his report means
IH must full-fill their contract, the spinner's mouthpieces say he is no
longer qualified or competent enough to write the very report IH
co-commissioned from him; when the mouthpieces have never seen the report.

It is not physically possible to describe something you have not seen. If
you do then you have failed science 101 and the Galileo test for you have
not put your eye to the telescope.

On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
the fantasy. A notebook or recorder is useful.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 14:47, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Dear Jed,
>>
>> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.
>>
>
> His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi
> states his reason for not publishing Penon report."
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Jed Rothwell is posting various comments about a supposed 2nd ERV.

As described by Jed Rothwell this report has several problems.

1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned
solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias.

2) It breaks the contract, there was an agreed team and an agreed format
for the ERV contractually agreed and paid for by both parties.

3) By Jed Rothwell's own post it seems the report is at best partial and by
its clan-destined nature likely to be flawed. Why IH are open about this
and other aspects worries me greatly.

These are just my first thoughts.

I am sure that others as well as myself can see the very obvious risks IH
are taking in pursuing their current course.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Fabio Penon

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select, on which to base
their Due Diligence, for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access, they
were so happy with his work, and that of the team they selected and that they
agreed for him to run; that they spent $10 million dollars as a result.

There is no wiggle room with facts they are when all is said and done facts.

And it is fact that IH were happy enough with Fabio Penon's
qualifications, experience and abilities spend $10 million dollars on
using him as their source of adequate Due Diligence for buying the
E-Cat License and seeing the E-Cat IP.

IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to
replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto by IH's
own inaction he was IH's choice for the ERV and they were fully
satisfied with him.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:IH selected Fabio Penon to lead the team they chosed for the test of the E-Cat

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene

There is only your imagination here.

I deal in facts.

Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select, on which to base
their Due Diligence, for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access, they
were so happy with his work and that of the team they selected and that they
agreed for him to run that they spent $10 million dollars as a result.

There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.

IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
choice for the ERV and they were fully satisfied with him.


There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.

Kind Regards walker


On 10 April 2016 at 17:10, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> In reply to Jones Beene
>
> There is only your imagination here. I deal in facts.
>
> Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select on which to
> base their Due Diligence for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access,
> they were so happy with his work and that of the team they select and that
> they agreed for him to run that they spent $10 dollars as a result.
>
> There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.
>
> IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
> replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
> choice for the ERV asnd they were fully satisfied with him.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 10 April 2016 at 17:09, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> In reply to Jones Beene
>>
>> There is only imagination here. I deal in facts.
>>
>> Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select on which to
>> base their Due Diligence for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access,
>> they were so happy with his work and that of the team they select and that
>> they agreed for him to run that they spent $10 dollars as a result.
>>
>> There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.
>>
>> IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
>> replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
>> choice for the ERV asnd they were fully satisfied with him.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>> On 10 April 2016 at 16:57, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Ian Walker
>>>
>>> > The key fact remains - Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH
>>> helped select and approve for the E-Cat Test. IH felt so secure in the
>>> capabilities of the team they selected that agreed with their assessments to
>>> the tune of $10 million.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. That is not a fact. Part of it comes from Rossi’s allegation in the
>>> complaint and the rest from your imagination
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:IH selected Fabio Penon to lead the team they chosed for the test of the E-Cat

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene

There is only your imagination here. I deal in facts.

Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select on which to base
their Due Diligence for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access, they
were so happy with his work and that of the team they select and that they
agreed for him to run that they spent $10 dollars as a result.

There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.

IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
choice for the ERV asnd they were fully satisfied with him.

Kind Regards walker

On 10 April 2016 at 17:09, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> In reply to Jones Beene
>
> There is only imagination here. I deal in facts.
>
> Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select on which to
> base their Due Diligence for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access,
> they were so happy with his work and that of the team they select and that
> they agreed for him to run that they spent $10 dollars as a result.
>
> There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.
>
> IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
> replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
> choice for the ERV asnd they were fully satisfied with him.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 10 April 2016 at 16:57, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> *From:* Ian Walker
>>
>> > The key fact remains - Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH
>> helped select and approve for the E-Cat Test. IH felt so secure in the
>> capabilities of the team they selected that agreed with their assessments to
>> the tune of $10 million.
>>
>>
>>
>> No. That is not a fact. Part of it comes from Rossi’s allegation in the
>> complaint and the rest from your imagination
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:IH selected Fabio Penon to lead the team they chosed for the test of the E-Cat

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene

There is only imagination here. I deal in facts.

Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select on which to base
their Due Diligence for purchase of the E-Cat license and IP access, they
were so happy with his work and that of the team they select and that they
agreed for him to run that they spent $10 dollars as a result.

There is no wiggle room here Jones Beene the facts are facts.

IH could at any time in the past few years have asked for him to be
replaced, but the fact remains they did not do so, ipso facto he was IHs
choice for the ERV asnd they were fully satisfied with him.

Kind Regards walker

On 10 April 2016 at 16:57, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Ian Walker
>
> > The key fact remains - Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH
> helped select and approve for the E-Cat Test. IH felt so secure in the
> capabilities of the team they selected that agreed with their assessments to
> the tune of $10 million.
>
>
>
> No. That is not a fact. Part of it comes from Rossi’s allegation in the
> complaint and the rest from your imagination
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:IH selected Fabio Penon to lead the team they chosed for the test of the E-Cat

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

The key fact remains

Fabio Penon was the primary engineer that IH helped select and approve for
the E-Cat Test. IH felt so secure in the capabilities of the team they
selected that agreed with their assessments to the tune of $10 million.

Rossi has continued to use the Nuclear Engineer, Product Certification
Specialist that IH were satisfied with, at any time in the last few years
IH could have chosen another engineer, they did not; therefore they were
happy with him to do the job.

HIGH TEMPERATURE E-CAT MODULE Test of July 16th, 2012 for E-Cat
Certification
Was with a three man test team of:
:Fabio Penon , M.Eng. (Nuclear Engineer, Product Certification Specialist)
E-Cat Electronic Control System Specialist
:Fulvio Fabiani, M.Eng.
Radiation Protection Report:
David Bianchini, M.Sc (Physicist, Radiation Measurements Specialist).

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:Selective memories IH selected and agreed to the team to test the E-Cat

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Some people seem to suffer from a selective memory glitch.

HIGH TEMPERATURE E-CAT MODULE Test of July 16th, 2012 for E-Cat
Certification
Was with a three man test team of:
:Fabio Penon , M.Eng. (Nuclear Engineer, Product Certification Specialist)
E-Cat Electronic Control System Specialist
:Fulvio Fabiani, M.Eng.
Radiation Protection Report:
David Bianchini, M.Sc (Physicist, Radiation Measurements Specialist).

The test was at the behest of IH and paid for by them to their
specification, using people they selected and agreed too to the tune of $10
million.

Rossi merely continued to use the Nuclear Engineer, Product Certification
Specialist that IH were satisfied with, at any time in the last few years
IH could have chosen another engineer, they did not; therefore they were
happy with him to do the job.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed Rothwell

On the matter of who was the target of the March 10 statement by I.H.

I think it can be reasonable argued that the target was Krivit, as Krivit
himself admits he sent one of his missives where he said he was going to
write a report stating Rossi and IH had split so what was their comment.

IMHO the March 10 statement by I.H. was their comment to Krivit and they
CCED it to every other site so Krivit could not claim his usual FUD
exclusive and to APCO Worldwide so that they could start dealing with
public relations.

Kind Regards walker



On 1 April 2016 at 00:17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned
>> by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report which they
>> cannot get behind.
>>
> That I agree with. I think the March 10 statement by I.H. repudiated
> Rossi's report in advance. They did not imply dishonesty, but they did say
> they cannot get behind it. "Get behind it" is le mot juste.
>
> Some people here think the March 10 statement does not mean that. I think
> that's a stretch. Granted, the statement is a little vague and it does not
> actually mention Rossi by name, but it seems clear to me that's who they
> mean. Who else is there?
>
> The statement is here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If this letter is real then:

For any scientist to prejudge results as Ahern just apparently has,
inevitably means bias. Given the nature of this open letter one must of
course consider whether Ahern has had ulterior motives in approaching
experimentalists and replicaters to offer his services.

This is all a bit confusing as only a handful of days back Ahern sent
materials to SKINR / University of Missouri group for the replication
attempt on a Lugano type Rossi reactor.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/.../2865-SKINR-University-of.../

If the Nickel reactors that Rossi invented, eg he has the Patent for them,
do not work then what has Ahern be privately testing all this time? And why
is he sending material he knows it will not work?

I do hope that SKINR / University of Missouri group have sourced additional
materials from another source than Ahern as I suggested; though I gave the
reason at the time, of them not wanting to taint their experiment with some
one who sceptics might argue as a source of "seasoned" fuel.

Now I have to say I look at that offer by Ahern in a totally opposite
light. No experimentalist should use the material from a person with a
stated bias.

Rossi has been completely open about the testing procedure and about the
length of the test and when the results will be available, and kept to each
of those promises. He told us he had a customer to buy the original reactor
he had IH and Darden. Those who were sceptical were wrong. He told us there
would be scientific test. The sceptical disbelieved again. Once again they
were wrong and the Lugano report came out. Rossi said there would be a year
long test in a factory. The sceptical said there was no factory. The
sceptical were wrong the pictures showed it was a real industrial test. The
sceptics said the test would be pushed to its bitter end. The sceptics were
wrong; the test was completed just few days after its shortest possible
period. The sceptics said their would be no report yet Rossi gave
reasonable deadline for the publication of its abstract and a date for a
conference in June.

I think we all just need to patient and await the results like sensible
human beings.

Prejudging is not scientific.

We will wait.

Kind Regards walker

On 31 March 2016 at 19:39, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Dr. Brian Ahern is no skeptic of  LENR. In fact he has verified
> Arata/Zhang and reported anomalous thermal gain in several important
> experiments. However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of
> being abandoned by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report
> which they cannot get behind.
>
> Here is Ahern’s open letter:
>
> “Constantly performing a bad behavior and expecting a different outcome
> is the definition of insanity.
>
> The LENR community must recall that Andrea Rossi is a well-practiced
> convict plying his trade.  He has been claiming outputs one million-fold
> higher than all other LENR efforts. Yet, after six years of such claims
> there has never been an independent test. A big lie is easier to promote
> than a small one.
>
> The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of the 21st
> century. Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples and
> water flow calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims. Those
> scientists are rightfully ashamed of themselves and have remained silent of
> the report. They  should confess to temporary insanity. Or as a minimum
> they should offer an explanation for why the wasted the funds provided by
> ELFORSK.
>
> I predicted that the ERV would be a problem. Rossi admitted paying for
> this INDEPENDENT TEST. Yet he will not divulge:
>
> A. the ERV person
>
> B. His location
>
> C. His report
>
> D. The customer
>
> E. The E-Cat location
>
> F. Operational data
>
> Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to
> the great impresario. The hopeful LENR folks are enabling the bad
> behavior.
>
> His suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm is just another
> delay tactic that he has employed artfully for the past six years.”
>
>

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed Rothwell.

The 15% Figure is the maximum value of oil in post fossil fuel age and the
$1 value is what they stated they are willing to go to.

The reality of the future market price is between the two.

Factors that will affect the price of oil including allowing or causing
continued low prices.
1) Strategy, they wish to kill off their competitors.
2) Strategy, they want to slow the take up of LENR.
3) Technology, LENR will cut the costs of production of everything
including oil.
4) Keeping the prices low will kill off US and other western Fracking
concerns which have high start-up debt costs.
5) Those Fracking wells that go bust because they cannot pay their loans,
will be bought up by big oil, as without the debt they are reasonably cheap
wells to run, but most such Fracking wells have less than a half of decade
of life in them, many as little as two. Putting in new Fracking wells in a
low oil value post Fossil Fuel era will not be viable, so Russia Iran and
Saudi Arabia will only need perhaps as little as two or three years to
replace high margins on low volume with low margins on high volume.
Consider the volume required will be coming down at the same time The
Saudis Russians and Iranians ramp up production.
6) The oil market will be among the be among the earliest adopters of LENR,
with everything, from rigs to to oil tankers.
7) Saudi Arabia and Russia have far bigger abilities to cope with low
income than many think, look at Iran they just lived through decades of
sanctions. Saudi Arabia owns big chunks of the USA and Europe, most malls
and warehouse districts you go to have a massive Saudi Ownership once you
look through who owns what.
8) Each of these countries will look to diversify and move into an LENR
enabled economy. I personally think Iran and Russia have the technical and
educational edge on the Saudi's but Saudi Arabia has the biggest war chest
so they will each be fighting out with the rest of the world for a share of
the action.

The above is not a complete thesis :)

Kind Regards walker




On 15 March 2016 at 02:35, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> So oil will drop to 15% of its expected value from that 2014 high.
>>
>
> When the demand for a commodity rapidly drops by 85%, it does not follow
> that the value also falls by 85%. In most cases it will fall even more than
> that, as sellers become desperate to unload inventory. In some cases there
> is a "floor" to how far it can fall. I do not think it is possible for any
> country to extract oil for only $1 a barrel. It might as well be $0 (free),
> and no country can afford to give away oil for free for long. They cannot
> do that because costs them much more than $1 to extract it, plus they would
> have no income. Oil is 87% of Saudi Arabia's exports, and 70% of Russia's.
>
>
>
>> My understanding is that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are all prepared
>> to drop oil to the $1 per barrel mark to kill off the majority of their
>> competitors.
>
>
> As I said, I think this would kill themselves off. I doubt that Saudi
> Arabia or Iran have a lot of foreign exchange saved up, and I know that
> Russia does not. They cannot go for years without income, while they spend
> billions extracting oil and giving it away for nothing.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:NY Times, "How Saudi Arabia Turned Its Greatest Weapon on Itself"

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

I wrote a report about this back in 2012 and revised it several times and
was permitted to make part of it public in 2013 a substantial proportion of
the report in a rough edited version was made available on Sifferkol's
website last year:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/a-must-read-guest-post-by-ian-walker-the-end-of-the-fossil-fuel-age/

A couple of things to take away in relation to the above discussion:
1) the advice to Saudi Arabia was to move to a market decline strategy and
to lower the price of oil both to kill off their competitors by stacking it
high and selling cheap thus gaining the same profits by moving from high
margins on low volume to low margins on high volume.
2) To slow the uptake of LENR by dropping the price to a level that made
the cost of switching to LENR less attractive.

On another matter out of what will oil be worth without using oil as a
fossil fuel, do a Google search for "What is in a Barrel of Oil"

Looking through those you can see oil will still have a residual value for
things such as Lubricants, Asphalt, petrochemical feedstock for plastics
etc about 7% to 15% of a barrel of oil is not used for fuel, and in fact
several new markets may be possible due to LENR enabling new technologies
and markets. So oil will drop to 15% of its expected value from that 2014
high.

I have of course, as has Sifferkol; made it clear that the Markets have
already largely discounted oil on the threat of LENR. My understanding is
that Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are all prepared to drop oil to the $1
per barrel mark to kill off the majority of their competitors. Then they
will be all the remaining 15% of the oil market.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 March 2016 at 20:50, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that the transportation of oil as well as its production cost
>> would make it desirable to find local sources for the elements needed in
>> those related products.
>
>
> As far as I know, the only thing you want in plastic feedstock is "pure
> hydrocarbon polymers." Hydrogen and carbon. Anything else is contamination.
> That's what I have read, anyway. I expect that it will eventually be
> possible to synthesize pure hydrocarbons from water and carbon rather than
> refining oil, which is rather dirty stuff. Coal may be a good source of
> carbon if there is not enough organic garbage or recycled plastic, or if it
> is not convenient to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2. There are still
> mountains of coal left. A small fraction of the coal mined today would
> suffice.
>
> Here is one source for the "pure" part:
>
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/hamman1/
>
> Energy for plastic
>
> . . . To begin, not all plastics are chiefly composed of hydrogen and
> carbon like polyethylene. For example, PET is about 33% oxygen by mass
> while PVC is about 57% chlorine by mass. [13] These additives come from
> non-hydrocarbon feedstocks. To account for the hydrocarbon feedstock
> energy, observe that three of the five most widely produced plastics,
> namely polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, together account for
> nearly 60% of all plastics production. [4,5] Both polypropylene and
> polystyrene are pure hydrocarbon polymers with similar heats of combustion
> as their feedstock counterparts and polyethylene. . . .
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and Nuclear Spectroscopy Technical Progress Report from the 1960s

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Has anyone seen this paper before?

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/12513302/

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:Los Alamos National Laboratory Numerical simulations for low energy nuclear reactions including direct channels to validate statistical models

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Do not remember this slide set about low energy nuclear reaction being
available before. Do any of you recognise it?

Numerical simulations for [lexicon]low energy nuclear reactions[/lexicon]
including direct channels to validate statistical models
By Kawano, Toshihiko

For Los Alamos National Laboratory

Odd that these seem to be coming out now. :)
http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info%3Alanl-repo%2Flareport%2FLA-UR-14-20086

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:Lawrence Livermore report on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions At The Highest Microscopic Level

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Suddenly lots of reports with [lexicon]Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions[/lexicon] being discussed.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/790602.pdf


Whatever is going on?

[image: :D]

I will post up a few more [image: ;)] Keep watching.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In all honesty we need to consider a post capitalism world.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video?CMP=fb_us

Kind Regards walker

On 13 August 2015 at 17:32, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:

 No - Craig I did not write that but I think it is correct in a way.
 Your more in dept series of events is actually supporting the statement as
 I see it.
 More important to me is that you actually give good example to how the
 manipulation for political reasons becomes more important than the
 economical reality.
 No body could get money without paying a high interest, which was
 impossible as it was shortage of income opportunity - so nobody invested so
 nobody bought more than absolute minimum and nobody invested  . .  .
 In the end of the day devaluation took place anyhow. The real irony is of
 course that as the US dollar dictated the value of other currencies it was
 no real devaluation or rather everybody devaluated.

 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros

 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
 commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

 On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 06:11 -0800, Lennart Thornros wrote:
  deflation in 1929 was because people stopped buying goods, buying
  work, to look less indepbted.

 No. Deflation in 1929 - 1933 was due to the Federal Reserve's response
 to a gold run. At the time, the US dollar was still considered to be
 gold, and the Federal Reserve was charged to ensure that all federal
 notes could be honored. They raised interest rates in 1929 to such an
 extent that the money supply which had been expanding for the previous
 decade, would decline to the point where they could ensure adequate gold
 reserves. They continued this policy for 3 years until Roosevelt made it
 illegal to own gold under a WWI emergency wartime act, at which point
 the gold run was over. However, even after all gold was confiscated, and
 three years of a contracting money supply, the US dollar still had to be
 devalued with respect its gold reserves from $20 / ounce to $35 / ounce.
 The Federal Reserve created a lot of money in the 1920s and much of it
 went into the stock market, driving prices to extraordinary levels,
 which had not been seen before that period in time.

 Craig

Re: [Vo]:Investigation by NC Department of Health into IH/Rossi/Vaughn/etc

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

As has been noted on Ecatworld in a post by US_Citizen71
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/04/rossi-responds-to-publication-of-inspection-report/
and as many thought from the disjointed ambiguous and odd phrasing in the
letter as well as missing pages, the letter appears to be a Photoshop job.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxCBtZoq-VqLd1VOd3dVS2pRWGM/view

Kind Regards walker


On 5 February 2015 at 16:03, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 I have no idea why J. T. Vaughn said what he said, but I expect he did
 say it. I do not think he is the sort of person who lies. Perhaps they are
 fed up with Rossi?


 I do not know who said what to whom, but let's go over this statement
 again:

 Mr JT Vaughn stated .. that Mr Rossi did not appear credible (paraphrase)

 Imagine an inspector from the State of South Carolina were to call me on
 the phone and ask: regarding this fellow Rossi, does he have any
 credibility with the scientific mainstream? I would say no, he doesn't.
 I might add that he has not published anything, he says controversial
 things, and he has a checkered past. I think it is obvious to anyone that
 he does not appear credible.

 I think some of Rossi's claims are probably true. Others I think are
 exaggerated or mistaken. He certainly has a credibility problem. I was
 hoping the second Elforsk test would settle the issue once and for all but
 unfortunately I do not think it has.

 If Vaughn said something like that, I don't see how anyone can criticize
 it.

 - Jed

[Vo]:One of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched sides

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

According to forum posts that were discovered by Sifferkol, just now; one
of Stephan Pomp's, three arch sceptic co authors, appears to have switched
sides and is now saying Rossi and Carl-Oscar Gullström will win next years
Nobel prize! Hmm...

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=454

Sarcasm or road to Damascus?

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:Failure to fulfil the Galileo test

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If you refuse to look through the telescope then you have failed the
Galileo test; you have stopped being a scientist and practising a religion.

A little classical style play from 20,000 years ago.
Prometheus (An inventor and log bridge builder) I have invented fire!
Stephan Pomp, (A priest of the God Pathoskepsis) Don't speak rubbish! Fire
can only come from lightning or volcanoes. The Gods theory clearly states
fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning

Prometheus I have, I just rub these sticks together see smoke!
Stephan Pomp You’re trying to scam people by selling those sticks
Prometheus I am not selling any one sticks you pick sticks up off the
ground they fall off trees
Stephan Pomp  I have just broke some branches off a tree I am getting no
smoke, your trying to scam us there is a hidden pipe to a volcano that
produces your smoke.

Prometheus “What pipe where?
Stephan Pomp That is what your scam is, you just hid the pipe probably
underground or out of that bear skin you wear. The Gods theory clearly
states fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning

Prometheus Ok I will give my sticks to Ugg the great hunter, he can show
it is working
Stephan Pomp The Gods theory clearly states fire only comes from the Gods
in Volcanoes and lightning

Ugg Look I am getting smoke too!
Stephan Pomp Ugg got fooled by Prometheus, who also made clay pots and the
pots broke and the chief’s wife got upset and the Chief tied Prometheus to
the tree so the birds could peck him, the sticks had hidden smoke in them
through a tube Prometheus connected to the ground when he was showing Ugg
the magic way to rub the sticks together. The Gods theory clearly states
fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning

Prometheus The Chief did not tie me to the tree; he threatened to because
I did not pay him half my hunt, the pots did break, but everyone uses pots
now, just loads of other people make them and this has got nothing to do
with fire out of sticks.
Stephan Pomp You cannot get fire from sticks I tried, it is unrepeatable
and The Gods theory clearly states fire only comes from the Gods in
Volcanoes and lightning

Prometheus You tried with green wood from green trees, try it with dry
wood off the ground
Stephan Pomp Now you tell us there is some special wood I told everyone
this is a scam, see now he wants you to buy his special wood. You cannot
get fire from sticks I tried, it is unrepeatable and The Gods theory
clearly states fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning

Prometheus I have invented fire! I am not just getting smoke any more I am
getting embers! Ugg has repeated it!
Stephan Pomp Ugg did not repeat it! Prometheus fooled him with a hidden
pipe to a volcano and embers he had hidden in his bear skin! You cannot get
fire from sticks I tried, it is unrepeatable and The Gods theory clearly
states fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning
Ugg Prometheus did not fool me. I got the smoke and embers all by myself
after he showed me how to do it.

Stephan Pomp Ugg did not repeat it! Ugg is getting old and is clearly
senile, and any way he is friend of Prometheus so he must be in on the scam
too. Prometheus and Ugg fooled us with a hidden pipe to a volcano and
embers he had hidden in his bear skin! You cannot get fire from sticks I
tried, it is unrepeatable and The Gods theory clearly states fire only
comes from the Gods in Volcanoes and lightning

Ugg I got Winga the farmer who invented grain and Grick the flint napper
to all test rubbing sticks together, we tested it at Pinga the well diggers
house so there is no possibility of smoke pipes, we all got smoke and
embers from the sticks Prometheus gave us

Stephan Pomp Ugg, Winga, Pinga and Grick did not repeat it! They are all
getting old and clearly senile. Prometheus fooled them Prometheus touched
the sticks, so it is not independent he must have put embers in the sticks!
Ugg was probably in on it. You cannot get fire from sticks I tried, it is
unrepeatable and The Gods theory clearly states fire only comes from the
Gods in Volcanoes and lightning. Prometheus is a well-known scam artist who
also made clay pots and the pots broke and the chief’s wife got upset and
the Chief tied Prometheus to the tree so the birds could peck him

Ugg, Winga, Pinga and Grick Even if he could hide the embers in the sticks
where did the smoke come from?

Stephan Pomp Ugg, Winga, Pinga and Grick did not repeat it! The smoke
cannot be measured by sniffing it and seeing it. It has to be captured in a
great special pig skin that you pipe through water, like I do for the great
smoke festival. Ugg, Winga, Pinga and Grick are all getting old and clearly
senile. Prometheus fooled them with Ugg’s help and embers he had hidden in
the sticks! You cannot get fire from sticks I tried, it is unrepeatable and
The Gods theory clearly states fire only comes from the Gods in Volcanoes
and lightning. Prometheus is a well-known scam artist 

[Vo]:ExtremeTech headlines with LENR success

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1
million times the energy density of gasoline

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to
generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by
third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report. The researchers
observed a small E-Cat over 32 days, where it produced net energy of 1.5
megawatt-hours, or “far more than can be obtained from any known chemical
sources in the small reactor volume.”...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

Follow the link to story in full

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:another Law breaker?

[Ian Walker]

Hi David

I did a search for good-bye-second-law-of-thermodynamics

It came up in google with this
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/09/good-bye-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html

I clicked on the link in google and it took me to the page that I quote the
first few lines of:


Home http://www.laserfocusworld.com/content/lfw/en/index.html
Good-bye second law of thermodynamics?
Good-bye second law of thermodynamics?
09/02/2014
By John Wallace
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/content/lfw/en/authors/john-wallace.html
Senior Editor

I was quite happy last week to post a news item about a colorless
transparent luminescent solar concentrator developed at Michigan State
University
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/08/solar-collector-is-transparent-colorless-doesn-t-block-the-view.html
(East
Lansing, MI), as I have had a long-term fascination with luminescent solar
concentrators. So why am I so fascinated by such devices?

One reason is that at first glance they seem to violate the second law of
thermodynamics
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-49/issue-06/features/chillers-and-coolers--breakthrough-of-optical-refrigeration--las.html,
which says that the entropy of any isolated system never decreases. In the
field of optics, the second law sorta translates in a hand-waving way to
the fact that the étendue (solid angle multiplied by beam cross-section) of
a light beam can never decrease: for example, one can't focus a low-quality
laser beam to a spot as small as that that can be produced by a
high-quality laser beam (given the same lens used for both, with lens pupil
optimally filled)...

Kind Regards walker

On 7 October 2014 18:52, David L. Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Exact link not found. On inspection, no such article found in their many
 lists.
 Pulled?

 Ol' Bab



 On 10/5/2014 9:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

 Every week it seems, there is a new assault around the edges of the 2nd
 Generalization of Thermodynamics...

 http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/09/good-bye-
 second-law-of-therm
 odynamics.html



 ---
 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
 protection is active.
 http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world

[Ian Walker]

The Reference to Neutron production is telling.
This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg
one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n.

Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe.

p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR!

What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant
proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that
creates such supposed Neutrons.

MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably
repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought
they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and
that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as
for possible health reasons.

If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with
the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain
the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction
then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor
and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction.

Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell
curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the
reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within
reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a
goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is
just right the reaction maintains it self.

Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been
so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition
that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks
level.

On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post
 at E-Cat World:

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/

 Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site
 for news.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world

[Ian Walker]

Hmm... Boron.


On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Reference to Neutron production is telling.
 This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg
 one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n.

 Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe.

 p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR!

 What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant
 proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that
 creates such supposed Neutrons.

 MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably
 repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought
 they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and
 that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as
 for possible health reasons.

 If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with
 the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain
 the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction
 then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor
 and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction.

 Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a
 bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting
 the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within
 reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a
 goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is
 just right the reaction maintains it self.

 Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been
 so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition
 that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks
 level.

 On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting
 post at E-Cat World:

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/

 Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site
 for news.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world

[Ian Walker]

Hmm... Lithium

Hmm... Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon.

Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix.


On 18 September 2014 09:43, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hmm... Boron.


 On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Reference to Neutron production is telling.
 This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process,
 eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n.

 Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe.

 p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR!

 What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a
 significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the
 process that creates such supposed Neutrons.

 MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably
 repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought
 they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and
 that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as
 for possible health reasons.

 If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with
 the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain
 the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction
 then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor
 and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction.

 Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a
 bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting
 the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within
 reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a
 goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is
 just right the reaction maintains it self.

 Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has
 been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an
 addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT
 goldilocks level.

 On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting
 post at E-Cat World:

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/

 Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site
 for news.

 Eric

[Vo]:Is Rossi Vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach?

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If the mention of Neutron emission by Paul on e-catworld is correct; then
is Rossi fully vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of
an Edisonian approach to LENR development?

I say Goldilocks nature of LENR because I conjecture that control of the
Neutron emission is the key to maintaining an LENR.

I think Rossi's catalyst forms an important part of the NAE and may sustain
it with ionised emissions from an absorber or more likely moderate i,t
keeping the Neutron flow even, this is standard for a hot fission reactor
so I see no reason LENR would be any different.

As water acts as a general Neutron absorber/moderator it may also explain
why the F/P water based reaction was not as successful.

TOO HOT! if the Neutrons are too fast they escape the reactor/NAE producing
Gamma bursts outside the reactor vessel and starving the reactor of
Neutrons the equivalent of a car backfiring and the reaction shuts down.

TOO COLD! Not enough Neutrons or too slow to sustain the reaction or they
all get absorbed in a moderator and the reaction starves of power and
stalls like a car without enough gas.

JUST SO and the Neutron emissions are constant and steady and the reaction
cruises along.

This Goldilocks zone would explain why so much LENR research is so hit and
miss.

On the Catalyst

I think moderation is the key. Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a
Hydrocarbon are the catalyst and provide that even Neutron flow that I
think is key to a sustained repeatable LENR.

Boron or Lithium could act as absorbers that then emit ionised particles at
a lower than hot fusion or normal fission energy level; then they may be
part of the heat production system. And may be part of the Catalyst, maybe
both processes are required.

I speculate that once again granular size and percentage in the mix of
moderators/absorbers are key. That we are looking at a bell curve of NAE's
in a reactor mass and that the mix of catalyst in the Nickel shifts the
Neutron production either way, fast or slow.

I submit that Rossi's Edisonian approach to the field is what has allowed
him to discover the LENR Goldilocks zone.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see
him other than when he is mentioned in others posts.

Kind Regards walker


On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others?

 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net:

  [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is
 eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup
 rule
 https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DaAnxdVWPjC40D43h1e%252BG9Z3%252Fci%252Fl%252Fqm4p8DOd34qMTgqELceqBScpC%252F3k3m91alTvre1LcZSwsAQ6BI4SVItD0i1FQSulTq5GFBXj1AgT00UFYLH7BWYbT2mWL62e%252BeTfe%252FOSfNj5apxU%252BS9%252B272dg%253D%253D%26key%3DXLGrslO6UOY4%252B7OL9egrIf%252B%252FtGVSvcnacDpxaVYy21o%253Dtc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001
 | More info
 http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001

 Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If everyone adds him to their spam filters he will disappear back in to his
own little fairytale world of utter irrelevance.

See Evolution works thank Darwin.

Kind Regards walker



On 26 August 2014 22:15, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see
 him other than when he is mentioned in others posts.

 Kind Regards walker


 On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others?

 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net:

  [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is
 eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup
 rule
 https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DaAnxdVWPjC40D43h1e%252BG9Z3%252Fci%252Fl%252Fqm4p8DOd34qMTgqELceqBScpC%252F3k3m91alTvre1LcZSwsAQ6BI4SVItD0i1FQSulTq5GFBXj1AgT00UFYLH7BWYbT2mWL62e%252BeTfe%252FOSfNj5apxU%252BS9%252B272dg%253D%253D%26key%3DXLGrslO6UOY4%252B7OL9egrIf%252B%252FtGVSvcnacDpxaVYy21o%253Dtc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001
 | More info
 http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001

 Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time.





 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Ignore Jojo Iznart's fairy tales about what e-catworld actually said, unless you enjoy being conned.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In Reply to Jojo Iznart:

You just love making stuff up. You would have a great future writing for
the Daily Mail, they write lots of fairy tales too.

This is what it says in the report Jojo Iznart is referring too in full
rather than Jojo Iznart's spin

*Update #17 (August 20, 2014)*

I was able to make contact with one of the people involved in the third
party test, asking if they could provide any guidance as to the release
date of the report. The response I received was that they realize there is
a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized
opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any
pre-statements about the content of timing or the report.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/

always go to the original source to check what I or any one else writes.

As we can see the real thread says nothing like Jojo Iznart's spin, it
seems he is a bit of a FUD merchant.

I wrote this in separate thread so as not to give its false headline any
attention by writing a reply in that thread.

Kind Regards walker

[Vo]:MIT Paper by

[Ian Walker]

Hi all I came across this:
http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/71632
;)

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene

I cannot find via google search, the quoted text “A new mechanism of LENR
in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic
lattice vibrations”, other than in the paper I linked, that you attribute
to being something Ahern wrote. While I do not dispute that you have seen
this text, or perhaps more likely something like it, I think it would help
the community if you would quote your source, so that full context can be
given.

I do not dispute that Ahern may follow the same view as the author of the
paper, but we must deal in evidence that we can see and judge ourselves. As
you point out, a person may claim... something about themselves or
others, and the claims may not hold up to inspection.

On another matter Rossi seems to think the “discrete breathers” (DBs) are
worth understanding and that particular paper should be read.

Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Andreas Moraitis:
The physics of the so called discrete breathers are very interesting. Good
paper, thank you for citing it to our Readers.
Warm Regards,

A.R.

I too think the paper is worth reading.

Kind Regards walker




On 17 June 2014 19:31, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Ian Walker

 Ahern is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to
 mention where you think the paper supports Ahern's view?

 OK. Dubinko starts out - the first sentence of his paper with this quote:
 “A
 new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
 amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”.

 This is the exact wording from Ahern, who does credit Fermi-Pasta-Ulam and
 goes into great detail in his prior publications on large amplitude
 anharmonic lattice vibrations. Dubinko is either not well-read on the
 relevant literature of LENR, or else he is trying to take credit for the
 work of others.

 So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and
 blacklight power espouses.

 Dubinko may claim not to support it, but he bases the energy of his
 hypothetical DB (page 3) on “electrolytic reaction 2D++ 2e = D2+ 31.7 eV
 which can proceed during the course of absorption/desorption at the cathode
 surface”

 …and we must surmise that he knows this large amount of energy is not
 possible without ground state redundancy, i.e. to derive 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV
 from standard chemistry is impossible, and since it is exactly as Mills
 suggests – he is supporting hydrino theory whether he acknowledges it or
 not.

 IOW-  Dubinko seems to be deliberately creating a smoke screen, since he
 cannot have it both ways… and that may be why he seems to be using “31.7
 eV”
 instead of breaking it down as 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV, which instantly invokes
 Mills’ Rydberg levels.

 The paper does reference Swartz

 Yes, but only minimally. If I am not mistaken, Mitchell should be credited
 with much more than this, but I do not have the inclination to make a point
 by point argument.

 Walker, I suggest writing to Mitchell Swartz directly for his comment … if
 you really insist on defending Dubinko. Where is the novelty?

 Jones

[Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

An interesting new theory paper has been submitted to Cornell's Arxiv

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf

Also submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Submitted to Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (16.06.2014)

Low energy nuclear reactions driven by discrete breathers

V.I. Dubinko
NSC Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov 61108, Ukraine

A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations, a.k.a. intrinsic localized modes
or “discrete breathers” (DBs). In particular, so called gap DBs, which can
arise in diatomic crystals such as metal hydrides, are argued to be the
LENR catalyzers. The large mass difference between H or D and the metal
atoms provides a gap in phonon spectrum, in which DBs can be excited in the
H/D sub-lattice resulting in extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms
required for the tunneling through nuclear Coulomb barrier. DBs have been
shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures or
via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium gas
loading conditions, employed under radiolysis or plasma deposition methods.
The DB statistics in both cases is analyzed and simple analytical
expressions for the cold fusion energy production rate are derived as the
functions of temperature, ion (electric) current and material parameters.
For the first time to our knowledge, the derived expressions describe
quantitatively the observed exponential dependence on temperature, linear
dependence on the ion current as well as the role of external triggering
and small dimensions of nuclear active particles.

Keywords: anharmonic lattice vibrations, discrete breathers, quantum
tunneling, nuclear fusion.


Kind Regards Walker

[Vo]:Re: New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Also Indexed at

http://scienceindex.com/stories/4260551/Low_energy_nuclear_reactions_driven_by_discrete_breathers.html

And available by

https://scirate.com/search?q=au:Dubinko_V+in:cond-mat

Kind Regards walker


On 17 June 2014 12:21, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 An interesting new theory paper has been submitted to Cornell's Arxiv

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf

 Also submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

 Submitted to Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (16.06.2014)

 Low energy nuclear reactions driven by discrete breathers

 V.I. Dubinko
 NSC Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov 61108, Ukraine

 A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
 amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations, a.k.a. intrinsic localized modes
 or “discrete breathers” (DBs). In particular, so called gap DBs, which can
 arise in diatomic crystals such as metal hydrides, are argued to be the
 LENR catalyzers. The large mass difference between H or D and the metal
 atoms provides a gap in phonon spectrum, in which DBs can be excited in the
 H/D sub-lattice resulting in extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms
 required for the tunneling through nuclear Coulomb barrier. DBs have been
 shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures or
 via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium gas
 loading conditions, employed under radiolysis or plasma deposition methods.
 The DB statistics in both cases is analyzed and simple analytical
 expressions for the cold fusion energy production rate are derived as the
 functions of temperature, ion (electric) current and material parameters.
 For the first time to our knowledge, the derived expressions describe
 quantitatively the observed exponential dependence on temperature, linear
 dependence on the ion current as well as the role of external triggering
 and small dimensions of nuclear active particles.

 Keywords: anharmonic lattice vibrations, discrete breathers, quantum
 tunneling, nuclear fusion.


 Kind Regards Walker

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Further work on “discrete breathers” (DBs) here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23585770?dopt=Abstractholding=npg

Kind Regards walker


On 17 June 2014 12:28, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 Also Indexed at


 http://scienceindex.com/stories/4260551/Low_energy_nuclear_reactions_driven_by_discrete_breathers.html

 And available by

 https://scirate.com/search?q=au:Dubinko_V+in:cond-mat

 Kind Regards walker


 On 17 June 2014 12:21, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 An interesting new theory paper has been submitted to Cornell's Arxiv

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf

 Also submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

 Submitted to Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (16.06.2014)

 Low energy nuclear reactions driven by discrete breathers

 V.I. Dubinko
 NSC Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov 61108, Ukraine

 A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the
 large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations, a.k.a. intrinsic localized
 modes or “discrete breathers” (DBs). In particular, so called gap DBs,
 which can arise in diatomic crystals such as metal hydrides, are argued to
 be the LENR catalyzers. The large mass difference between H or D and the
 metal atoms provides a gap in phonon spectrum, in which DBs can be excited
 in the H/D sub-lattice resulting in extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D
 atoms required for the tunneling through nuclear Coulomb barrier. DBs have
 been shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures
 or via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium
 gas loading conditions, employed under radiolysis or plasma deposition
 methods. The DB statistics in both cases is analyzed and simple analytical
 expressions for the cold fusion energy production rate are derived as the
 functions of temperature, ion (electric) current and material parameters.
 For the first time to our knowledge, the derived expressions describe
 quantitatively the observed exponential dependence on temperature, linear
 dependence on the ion current as well as the role of external triggering
 and small dimensions of nuclear active particles.

 Keywords: anharmonic lattice vibrations, discrete breathers, quantum
 tunneling, nuclear fusion.


 Kind Regards Walker

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

This paper supports many of the concepts and views that Edmund Storms
brought to vortex.

I hope Edmund continues to follow the vortex and has read the paper.

Kind Regards walker


On 17 June 2014 12:21, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 An interesting new theory paper has been submitted to Cornell's Arxiv

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf

 Also submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

 Submitted to Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (16.06.2014)

 Low energy nuclear reactions driven by discrete breathers

 V.I. Dubinko
 NSC Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov 61108, Ukraine

 A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
 amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations, a.k.a. intrinsic localized modes
 or “discrete breathers” (DBs). In particular, so called gap DBs, which can
 arise in diatomic crystals such as metal hydrides, are argued to be the
 LENR catalyzers. The large mass difference between H or D and the metal
 atoms provides a gap in phonon spectrum, in which DBs can be excited in the
 H/D sub-lattice resulting in extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms
 required for the tunneling through nuclear Coulomb barrier. DBs have been
 shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures or
 via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium gas
 loading conditions, employed under radiolysis or plasma deposition methods.
 The DB statistics in both cases is analyzed and simple analytical
 expressions for the cold fusion energy production rate are derived as the
 functions of temperature, ion (electric) current and material parameters.
 For the first time to our knowledge, the derived expressions describe
 quantitatively the observed exponential dependence on temperature, linear
 dependence on the ion current as well as the role of external triggering
 and small dimensions of nuclear active particles.

 Keywords: anharmonic lattice vibrations, discrete breathers, quantum
 tunneling, nuclear fusion.


 Kind Regards Walker

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene on the matter of who the author is referencing:

I agree the paper does not reference *Mills *other than in passing where
the author states in the introduction:

Numerous experimental data on low energy nuclear reactions assisted by the
crystalline environment [1-3] leave little doubts about the reality of
LENR, but a comprehensive theory of this phenomenon remains a subject of
debates [2-4]. Some of the proposed models attempted to modify conventional
nuclear physics by introducing various types of transient quasi-particles
and structures such as Hydrino, Hydron, Hydrex etc. that were expected to
lower the Coulomb barrier. Other, less radical, models pointed out at the
possibility of screening of the Coulomb barrier by atomic electrons.
Comprehensive review can be found in refs [2-4]. However, none of these
models can explain even qualitatively all salient conditions required for
the LENR, which have been summarized by McKubre et al [2] as follows...


So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and blacklight power
espouses.

*Ahern *is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to mention where
you think the paper supports Ahern's view?

*Storms* is referenced a couple of times:

Page 6
The above mentioned results demonstrate that the increase of concentration
of the highenergy light atoms with increasing temperature is attributed to
the thermally-activated excitation of gap DBs in the sub-lattice of light
atoms supporting essentially nonlinear localized vibrational modes. These
findings are of primary importance for the concept of LENR driven by DBs,
since they point out at the two ways of creation of the so called “nuclear
active environment” (NAE, as defined by Storms [3]), which is associated
with an environment supporting DBs in the present paper. The first way is
thermal activation of DBs in the sub-lattice of D or H within the compound
nanocrystal, in which the heavy component is represented by a suitable
metal such as Pd, Pt, or Ni. This way seems to be the basic mechanism for
the LENR observed e.g. in specially treated nickel surface exposed to
hydrogen at high temperatures (see refs.76-79 in [3]). The second way is
the DB excitation by external triggering such as the atomic displacements
in the course of exothermic electrolysis at metal cathodes (majority of
LENR experiments) or due to energetic ions, obtained by discharge in gas
containing hydrogen isotopes (see refs. 48, 49 in [3]). Naturally, both
mechanisms may operate simultaneously under LENR conditions, and this
synergy should be reflected in a viable model of DB excitation, the
construction of which is attempted in the next section.

Page 10
Small size of PdD particles is required since the triggering of DB
creation occurs due to the propagation of the vibrational energy from the
surface (by quodons, focusons etc.) down to some depth, and the smaller is
the particles the more atoms can be involved in the DB creation, i.e.
become “nuclear active”. This is manifested in the model by the inversely
proportional dependence of the power output on the particle size (see Fig.
12 (a)). Storms [3] underlies that “not all small particles are
nuclear-active, other factors must play a role as well. From the point of
view of the present model, this can be explained by a crucial role of
impurity atoms that can strongly affect the phonon spectrum of PdD.
Although impurity atoms are localized and their concentration may be low,
they may change the phonon spectrum of the whole crystal and extend it into
the DB range, which would suppress the DB formation and make the particle
nuclear inactive (or vise versa!). This consideration may be a useful
tool for the search of the “nuclear active environment” (NAE) by the way of
doping the Metal-D or MetalH crystals with elements changing the phonon
spectrum so that to mediate the DB creation.

The paper does reference *Swartz:*

Page 10
In the introduction we sited the problem formulated by McKubre et al [2]
concerning the coupling of the adsorption/desorption reaction energy into
modes of lattice vibration appropriate to stimulate D + D interaction.
Indeed, in spite of a number of models trying to take into account the
phonons, i.e. packets of wave-energy present in a lattice, as the LENR
drivers (see e.g. refs to Hagelstein, Swartz, and F. S. Liu in [3]), one
could not help feeling that something important was missing in the theory.
Phonons were expected to move energy between nuclei, thereby creating
enough localized energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. But phonons are
plane harmonic waves, essentially delocalized in the crystal, and the
amplitude of atomic vibrations in harmonic range does not exceed ~0.1 Å
[30], which is absolutely insufficient for the tunneling at any observable
rate (Fig. 13), whatever the underlying mathematics is. In contrast to
phonons, DBs, also known as intrinsic localized modes, are essentially
localized atomic vibrations that have 

[Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

On the matter of scepticism:

No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR
but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and
put your eye to the telescope.

For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been
published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is
further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party
test report:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at
the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main
stream media as these and others did:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific
scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or
critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence
that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third
Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first
Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the
fundamental principles of the scientific method:

 In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on
empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.

This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report
are engaged in religion not science.

The Experiment is king.

To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put
your eye to the telescope.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Axil Axil

The point I was making was clearly about the the lack of scientific basis
of the Radio Reporter critique of a third party report that has not yet
been published, so hence no basis on which to make their critique and about
the use of ad homonym attacks rather than critique of testing methodology.

On the matter of black box testing Rossi's pre loaded dry Ni/H reactor.
That black box approach is a perfectly valid methodology in science and has
been used in testing computer algorithms for decades and is the basis for
the double blind tests that underpin modern medicine, I presume you are not
saying that the Lancet does not engage in using scientific method?

In point of fact all scientific experimental discovery is black box without
exception, because until you establish effect you have no basis on which to
discover cause.

Kind Regards walker


On 4 June 2014 16:40, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and
 operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently
 and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long
 as possible.

 When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me.

 LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering.


 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 On the matter of scepticism:

 No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR
 but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and
 put your eye to the telescope.

 For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been
 published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks,
 is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party
 test report:
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it
 at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main
 stream media as these and others did:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/


 http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/


 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

 Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific
 scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or
 critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence
 that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third
 Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first
 Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the
 fundamental principles of the scientific method:

  In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on
 empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
 reasoning.

 This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report
 are engaged in religion not science.

 The Experiment is king.

 To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and
 put your eye to the telescope.

 Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Have not read the whole thread yet; might it be that the forces involved
cause the Hydrogen to get sucked/pushed away from the surface into the bulk
of the hydrate in preference to starting the reaction and that in the case
of bulk materials the reaction only takes place when the bulk of material
is full to over flowing on to the surface or in to the cracks or whiskers
that form the NAE?

Kind Regards walker


On 8 May 2014 05:13, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there
 would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not
 understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that
 case?


 Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD
 cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the
 surface.  Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than
 nickel does with hydrogen.  In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more
 soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

This would explain the apparent success of the high fractal surface powders.

Kind Regards walker



On 8 May 2014 10:40, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 Have not read the whole thread yet; might it be that the forces involved
 cause the Hydrogen to get sucked/pushed away from the surface into the bulk
 of the hydrate in preference to starting the reaction and that in the case
 of bulk materials the reaction only takes place when the bulk of material
 is full to over flowing on to the surface or in to the cracks or whiskers
 that form the NAE?

 Kind Regards walker


 On 8 May 2014 05:13, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there
 would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not
 understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that
 case?


 Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD
 cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the
 surface.  Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than
 nickel does with hydrogen.  In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more
 soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

To quote Bob: The Times they are a changing.

Kind Regards walker




On 1 May 2014 18:21, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'll be darned. They have a page for Mizuno, and one for the ICCF
 conferences too. The ICCF page was there years ago but someone deleted it.
 It is back.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadahiko_Mizuno

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Cold_Fusion

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Lewan book

[Ian Walker]

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]:More on the Mizuno presentation

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

I think Rossi's reference to Jet engines may be with regard to matters that
came up in the NASA seedling presentation, particularly the Brayton Cycle.
It took up a big chunk of the NASA report:
http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/SeedlingWELLS.pdf


I think a cloak of NDAs; as strong and legally frightening as those used by
Google on their Barges; is what is preventing us from seeing what Rossi's
partner companies are up to. I think Cherokee is just a cut-off for far
bigger players, companies like Cherokee are what bigger companies use to
keep the SEC off their backs.

I think it is that cloud of NDAs that makes NASA and the US Navy only give
us hints as to what is going on. We know they let slip the Lockheed Martin
connection in the meeting and one paper from a Lockheed Martin researcher
got on to the web only to be removed when it came to light.

Kind Regards Walker


On 25 March 2014 18:00, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Good point Bob.



 BTW - as to further HotCat possibilities - how many remember one of the
 original drones which goes back 50 years ? ... and  which design could be
 notable for this thread since it was a ram-jet configuration. Only a few of
 the Lockheed D-21 were built. It would fly very high but the fuel
 consumption was miserable. That is why LENR could change everything.



 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/D21-070308.jpg



 The ram-jet configuration would work with a HotCat power source to extend
 the range considerably. And the platform is ultra cheap and expendable but
 also nearly impossible to shoot down.



 Yes - I know that Rossi later said on his blog - that oops, he was really
 talking about a turbine, not a jet -- but we also know from past experience
 that AR has a habit of revealing too much at times, and then trying to
 back-track to cover up. Or else, he is very good about playing his
 audience. J



 *From:* Bob Cook



 Rossi came up with his hot cat design pretty quick.  It seems from my
 recollection that there was never a significant lead up to the
 announcement.  Available bucks could have been the answer.

 Here is Krivit's interview but it happened back at the end of 2011, so it
 may not be relevant to that possibility (that Rossi switched to a jet
 engine in order to get rapid funding from DARPA)




 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/Intel/Krivit-LENR-Interview-For-IARPA.pdf



 It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of
 producing the power plant directly.



 Dave - Not really odd when you follow the buck.



 DoE takes time to fund. And politics are involved. Even the best idea is a
 year away with many strings attached.



 DARPA is streamlined. Funds are instantly available with few strings.



 There is one area of RD in the USA capable of getting a check for a
 transformational technology signed this afternoon - and it relates to
 remotely piloted aircraft (aka drones).



 This is the top of everyone priority list and if you look close enough,
 you can probably see the footprint of MITRE. Unless that is, Krivit screwed
 up by public report of less than a year ago.

Re: [Vo]:EFA SRL E-Cat Shipping Documents?

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

No Possibility of Hoax since we already know Industrial Heat, LLC/Cherokee
Investment Partners admits taking delivery of the Rossi's Ecat technology
and the photographs have been matched to members of the Management
board of Cherokee
Investment Partners. I wonder who the Partners are on this particular
venture. Companies use LLCs created by investment firms like Cherokee
Investment Partners as cut-off's to hide what they are doing

Odd coincidence with the proximity to the east coast Google Barges though.
Both happening at the same time is just coincidence. Both subjects are
NDA-ed to death even the Coast Guard are frightened to speak about Google
Barges. I suspect the NASA reticence is NDAs too. Just business, nothing to
see here move along.

Kind Regards walker


On 17 March 2014 14:21, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton

 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/shipping-data-found-for-e-cat-plant/

 Two shipments: one to Norfolk, VA and one to Charleston, SC.  Did one
 go to the Navy and one to Industrial Heat, LLC? ... Or is it all a hoax?


 One small detail which makes a hoax less likely can be seen in the
 shipper's
 request for deck storage, despite the added storm risk.

 This implies that the shipper did not want to present an industrial spy
 with
 an easier opportunity to open the container and steal one of the E-Cat
 units. That kind of theft would have been easier to pull off below deck,
 since there is a clear view of deck containers from the pilot house.

 A hoaxer probably would not have added that detail to a forged document.
 This does not prove anything, except that the document probably does
 represent the shipment of a container which was deemed to be higher value
 for theft, even assuming the added risk of bad weather.

Re: [Vo]:New Celani paper

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In Reply to Jed:

Good that there was so much replication from so many diverse sources.

As well as the fact it was accepted on the Journal of Chemistry and
Materials Research on the website of the International Institute for
Science, Technology and Education (IISTE).
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/CMR/article/view/8655
I was a little clumsy trying to fit the full details in the subject on the
post trying fit it in to my mail client and hit return thinking it would
give me an extra line rather than just send it before I finished. :D
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg87526.html

Clearly LENR is becoming more accepted in main stream science.

Kind Regards walker


On 2 December 2013 19:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This has lots of experimental detail.

 Celani, F., et al., *Improved understanding of self-sustained,
 sub-micrometric multicomposition surface Constantan wires interacting with
 H2 at high temperatures: experimental evidence of Anomalous Heat Effects*.
 Chemistry and Materials Research, 2013. *3*(12).

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFimprovedun.pdf

 - Jed

[Vo]:New LENR paper by Francesco Celani et al in the Chemistry and Materials Research at the

[Ian Walker]

I thought I would bring this paper to the attention of Vortex members.

Improved understanding of self-sustained, sub-micrometric multi-composition
surface Constantan wires interacting with H2 at high temperatures:
experimental evidence of Anomalous Heat Effects

Francesco Celani, E.F. Marano, A. Nuvoli, E. Purchi, M. Nakamura, S. Pella,
B. Ortenzi, E. Righi, G. Trenta, S. Bartalucci, A. Ovidi, G.L. Zangari, F.
Micciulla, S. Bellucci, G. Vassallo


Abstract


This article is an extension of what presented by our team at 17th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, ICCF-17, in Daejon, Korea, in 2012
[1]. It documents the improvements on Constantan-related experiments,
started in 2011, in order to study the feasibility of new Nickel based
alloys that are able to absorb proper amounts of Hydrogen (H2) and/or
Deuterium (D2) and that have, in principle, some possibility to generate
anomalous thermal effects at temperatures 100°C. The interest in Ni comes
in part because there is the possibility to use also H2 instead of
expensive D2. Moreover, cross-comparison of results using H2 instead of D2
can be made and could help the understanding of the phenomena involved
(atomic, nuclear, super-chemical origin?) due to the use of such isotopes.

Keywords: calorimeter, LENR, Nickel based alloys, sub-micrometric surfaces

Available here:

http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/CMR/article/view/8655

Kind Regards walker