Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Lennart Thornros]

Frank
Is it 1.094 MHz?

On Jul 19, 2017 10:12, "Frank Znidarsic"  wrote:

>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
> wrote:
> >
> > There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> > impossible.
> >/snip
>
>
> This is exactly what I expected.  Terra hertz radiation forms a
> vibrationally reinforced Bose condensate (a superconductor) in nano sized
> particles..  Again,  "The constants of the motion tend toward the
> electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a dimensional
> frequency of 1,094,000 meters/ second".
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.516...71M
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Frank Znidarsic]

>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible.
>/snip



This is exactly what I expected.  Terra hertz radiation forms a vibrationally 
reinforced Bose condensate (a superconductor) in nano sized particles..  Again, 
 "The constants of the motion tend toward the electromagnetic in a Bose 
condensate that is stimulated at a dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/ 
second".


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.516...71M

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Once in a while a tidbit of real value makes it through the vortex. The Ralph 
Waldo Emerson quote on the Hobgoblins of little minds is one such tidbit, 
Thanks!

 

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 



On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com 
<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
> <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible.
>
> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor


I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is to 
assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter -- 
whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase space' of 
possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.

Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...



“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little 
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has 
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the 
wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what 
to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said 
to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, 
to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and 
Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit 
that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”


― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.6822


Exciton-polariton condensates

Tim Byrnes,1 Na Young Kim,2 and Yoshihisa Yamamoto1, 2
1National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
101-8430, Japan
2E. L. Ginzton Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
(Dated: November 26, 2014)

Recently a new type of system exhibiting spontaneous coherence has emerged
{ the excitonpolariton
condensate. Exciton-polaritons (or polaritons for short) are bosonic
quasiparticles that
exist inside semiconductor microcavities, consisting of a superposition of
an exciton and a cavity
photon. Above a threshold density the polaritons macroscopically occupy the
same quantum state,
forming a condensate. The lifetime of the polaritons are typically
comparable to or shorter than
thermalization times, making them possess an inherently non-equilibrium
nature. Nevertheless,
they display many of the features that would be expected of equilibrium
Bose-Einstein condensates
(BECs). The non-equilibrium nature of the system raises fundamental
questions of what it means
for a system to be a BEC, and introduces new physics beyond that seen in
other macroscopically
coherent systems. In this review we focus upon several physical phenomena
exhibited by excitonpolariton
condensates. In particular we examine topics such as the di erence between
a polariton
BEC, a polariton laser, and a photon laser, as well as physical phenomena
such as super
uidity,
vortex formation, BKT (Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless) and BCS
(Bardeen-Cooper-Schrie er)
physics. We also discuss the physics and applications of engineered
polariton structures.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
>> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>>
>> This is not an absolute. When polaritons are confined in an optical
>> cavity over time, FANO interference forces the waveform into a soliton. In
>> other words, long term confinement of EMF leads to the formation of a BEC
>> through interference.
>>
>
> I did not know that. But this is only a _virtual_ BEC, no..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
 generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
 but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
 matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
 signs of a BEC?

>>>
>>> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
>>> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>>> (in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
>>> _necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
>>> which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
>>> electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
>>> the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
>>> them w/o any friction.
>>>
>>> Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who
>>> can know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
>>> would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
>>> :D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
 > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 > wrote:
 >>
 >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
 >> impossible.
 >>
 >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
 >
 >
 > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the
 assumption is
 > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of
 matter
 > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
 space'
 > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
 >
 > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
 >


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
>> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>>
>> This is not an absolute. When polaritons are confined in an optical
>> cavity over time, FANO interference forces the waveform into a soliton. In
>> other words, long term confinement of EMF leads to the formation of a BEC
>> through interference.
>>
>
> I did not know that. But this is only a _virtual_ BEC, no..?
>


Perhaps the key to effective 'room-temperature' superconductivity is to be
'virtual superconductors' as well...
:)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>
> This is not an absolute. When polaritons are confined in an optical cavity
> over time, FANO interference forces the waveform into a soliton. In other
> words, long term confinement of EMF leads to the formation of a BEC through
> interference.
>

I did not know that. But this is only a _virtual_ BEC, no..?








>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
>>> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
>>> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
>>> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
>>> signs of a BEC?
>>>
>>
>> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
>> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>> (in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
>> _necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
>> which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
>> electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
>> the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
>> them w/o any friction.
>>
>> Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can
>> know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
>> would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
>> :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>>> >> impossible.
>>> >>
>>> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
>>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption
>>> is
>>> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of
>>> matter
>>> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
>>> space'
>>> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
>>> >
>>> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

try

linear Bose Einstin condensate

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Che  wrote:

>
> Looking up 'linear BEC' I'm getting battery circuits... wtf.
> :P
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
>>> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
>>> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
>>> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
>>> signs of a BEC?
>>>
>>
>> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
>> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
>> (in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
>> _necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
>> which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
>> electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
>> the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
>> them w/o any friction.
>>
>> Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can
>> know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
>> would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
>> :D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>>> >> impossible.
>>> >>
>>> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
>>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption
>>> is
>>> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of
>>> matter
>>> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
>>> space'
>>> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
>>> >
>>> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible

This is not an absolute. When polaritons are confined in an optical cavity
over time, FANO interference forces the waveform into a soliton. In other
words, long term confinement of EMF leads to the formation of a BEC through
interference.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
>> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
>> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
>> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
>> signs of a BEC?
>>
>
> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
> (in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
> _necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
> which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
> electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
> the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
> them w/o any friction.
>
> Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can
> know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
> would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
> :D
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>> >> impossible.
>> >>
>> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption
>> is
>> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of
>> matter
>> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
>> space'
>> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
>> >
>> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

Looking up 'linear BEC' I'm getting battery circuits... wtf.
:P

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
>> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
>> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
>> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
>> signs of a BEC?
>>
>
> I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
> requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
> (in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
> _necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
> which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
> electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
> the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
> them w/o any friction.
>
> Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can
> know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
> would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
> :D
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>> >> impossible.
>> >>
>> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption
>> is
>> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of
>> matter
>> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
>> space'
>> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
>> >
>> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
> signs of a BEC?
>

I'm no fyzicist, but BECs are the quantum state of matter absolutely
requiring the least possible amount of energy in the system as is possible
(in order to overcome Pauli exclusion, AFAIK). So AFAIK too: they'd
_necessarily_ *need* to be around zero kelvin. Not so superconductors:
which would apparently *only* require a configuration which allows
electrons (_only_ cooper pairs?) to travel freely without careening into
the atomic lattice containing them. Perhaps a lattice which indeed *guides*
them w/o any friction.

Maybe a future fyzix would handle that at room temperature too... Who can
know the far future, eh..? And perhaps room temperature superconductors
would be the necessary pre-condition for that to come about, too... (??!!)
:D




>
> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
> >
> >
> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is
> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter
> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
> space'
> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
> >
> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

The Ideal shape of the LENR active nanoparticles is the nanowire.


[image: tumblr_inline_nklod0IHqf1rpydpj.gif]



(Simulation of the continuous polarization dependence of the photoinduced
surface plasmon polaritons field distribution in a silver nanoresonator of
5.7 μm length and 67 nm radius under 800 nm excitation. Details of the the
induced |*Ez*| distribution with polarization angle *φ*.


The picture shows how Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) form on the surface
of a nanowire. Heat produces a periodic barrier called a quantum or thermal
phase slip that confines packets of electrons is a regular pattern whose
number is proportional to the temperature. The heat photons combine with
the trapped electrons to form polaritons. The hotter it gets, the more
vigorous is the productions and the power of the SPP.


The pattern of polarization shows that all the SPPs behave in the same way
and thus are regimented by Bose Condensation. Under Bose Condensation, all
the energy of the polariton condinsate is available to any member of the
condinsate, a process called superradiance (AKA...all for one and one for
all).

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
> generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
> but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
> matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
> signs of a BEC?
>
> On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
> >
> >
> > I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is
> > to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter
> > -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase
> space'
> > of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
> >
> > Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

Wouldn't that be fascinating if High Temp Superconductors were
generating linear BECs?   I can see they might be Luttinger Liquids,
but let's say it went one step further, not into a solid state of
matter but into the Condensate state of matter.Are there telltale
signs of a BEC?

On 7/18/17, Che  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>> impossible.
>>
>> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor
>
>
> I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is
> to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter
> -- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase space'
> of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.
>
> Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible.
>
> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor


I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is
to assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter
-- whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase space'
of possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.

Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...



“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the
wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what
to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you
said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so
bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates,
and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every
pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be
misunderstood.”


― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
impossible. All reports of them have never been corroborated.
> The explanation would take hours, but Keith Johnson solved the problem in
1983 in the  Journal of Synthetic Metals volume 5.


Is this going to be one of those CLASSIC, classic 'common-sensical',
'officially-proven', Establishment Science conceits which are going to turn
out being absolutely nothing of the sort -- to be summarily tossed out the
window -- upon the shocking revelation of an 'impossible' breakthrough:
which makes this former 'sure-thing' belief the laffable pomposity it in
fact was, upon historical hindsight..?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
impossible.

***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor

On 7/18/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leif Holmlid sites  J. E. Hirsch when he describes metallic hydrogen as a
> superconductor. Holmlid et al have verified that the hydrogen trapped in
> the microcavities present in iron oxide are superconductors. Hirsch now
> believes that all superconductivity in high Tc cuprates as well as all
> other superconductors are hole superconductors.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.07452
> Towards an understanding of hole superconductivity
> Fig. 1. (Color online) Cluster with more than 100 hydrogen atoms squeezed
> in palladium crystal defect with superconducting properties measured by
> SQUIDS (Lipson et al. , 2005; Miley et al. , 2007) is generated, see Figure
> 1 in Miley et al. (2008).
> [image: Fig. 1. (Color online) Cluster with more than 100 hydrogen atoms
> squeezed in palladium crystal defect with superconducting properties
> measured by SQUIDS (Lipson et al. , 2005; Miley et al. , 2007) is
> generated, see Figure 1 in Miley et al. (2008).]
>
> The detection by MFMP of the x-ray burst is experimental evidence that hole
> superconductivity is present at temperatures near 1000C.
>
> The detection of this radiation burst can be cited as verification of the
> existence of high temperature superconductivity produce by a hole
> superconductor as cited by Holmlid.
>
> This bremsstrahlung like radiation has no K line spikes that always appears
> in this continuum.
>
> The characteristic x-ray emission which is shown as two sharp peaks in the
> illustration at left occur when vacancies are produced in the n=1 or
> K-shell of the atom and electrons drop down from above to fill the gap. The
> x-rays produced by transitions from the n=2 to n=1 levels are called
> K-alpha x-rays, and those for the n=3→1 transition are called K-beta
> x-rays.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/xrayc.html
>
> The lack of these K line spikes indicate that the bremsstrahlung like
> radiation was generated by something other than an interaction of high
> energy electrons impacting on a metal lattice.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
>> impossible. All reports of them have never been corroborated.
>> The explanation would take hours, but Keith Johnson solved the problem in
>> 1983 in the  Journal of Synthetic Metals volume 5.
>>
>> There are numerous magnetic anomalies that seem like a Meisner Effect,
>> but
>> they do not share all of the attributes.
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 1:56 PM
>> *To:* Vortex
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled
>>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose
>>> because
>>> it would be difficult to test for.
>>>
>>
>> Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of
>> nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that
>> finding a tiny amount of superconducting material in a sample that is 99%
>> not superconducting would be difficult.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

Leif Holmlid sites  J. E. Hirsch when he describes metallic hydrogen as a
superconductor. Holmlid et al have verified that the hydrogen trapped in
the microcavities present in iron oxide are superconductors. Hirsch now
believes that all superconductivity in high Tc cuprates as well as all
other superconductors are hole superconductors.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.07452
Towards an understanding of hole superconductivity
Fig. 1. (Color online) Cluster with more than 100 hydrogen atoms squeezed
in palladium crystal defect with superconducting properties measured by
SQUIDS (Lipson et al. , 2005; Miley et al. , 2007) is generated, see Figure
1 in Miley et al. (2008).
[image: Fig. 1. (Color online) Cluster with more than 100 hydrogen atoms
squeezed in palladium crystal defect with superconducting properties
measured by SQUIDS (Lipson et al. , 2005; Miley et al. , 2007) is
generated, see Figure 1 in Miley et al. (2008).]

The detection by MFMP of the x-ray burst is experimental evidence that hole
superconductivity is present at temperatures near 1000C.

The detection of this radiation burst can be cited as verification of the
existence of high temperature superconductivity produce by a hole
superconductor as cited by Holmlid.

This bremsstrahlung like radiation has no K line spikes that always appears
in this continuum.

The characteristic x-ray emission which is shown as two sharp peaks in the
illustration at left occur when vacancies are produced in the n=1 or
K-shell of the atom and electrons drop down from above to fill the gap. The
x-rays produced by transitions from the n=2 to n=1 levels are called
K-alpha x-rays, and those for the n=3→1 transition are called K-beta x-rays.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/xrayc.html

The lack of these K line spikes indicate that the bremsstrahlung like
radiation was generated by something other than an interaction of high
energy electrons impacting on a metal lattice.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible. All reports of them have never been corroborated.
> The explanation would take hours, but Keith Johnson solved the problem in
> 1983 in the  Journal of Synthetic Metals volume 5.
>
> There are numerous magnetic anomalies that seem like a Meisner Effect, but
> they do not share all of the attributes.
>
> --
> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 1:56 PM
> *To:* Vortex
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled
>
> I wrote:
>
>
>> I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because
>> it would be difficult to test for.
>>
>
> Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of
> nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that
> finding a tiny amount of superconducting material in a sample that is 99%
> not superconducting would be difficult.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically 
impossible. All reports of them have never been corroborated.
The explanation would take hours, but Keith Johnson solved the problem in 1983 
in the  Journal of Synthetic Metals volume 5.

There are numerous magnetic anomalies that seem like a Meisner Effect, but they 
do not share all of the attributes.


From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:56 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

I wrote:

I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because it 
would be difficult to test for.

Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of 
nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that finding 
a tiny amount of superconducting material in a sample that is 99% not 
superconducting would be difficult.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold
>> fusion' as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up
>> in a dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>>
>
> The results are not a bit dead end. By the standards of experimental
> science, cold fusion results were superb. Practically unprecedented in the
> history of science. It was a totally unexpected phenomenon and it is still
> not understood, yet within a few years there were hundreds of irrefutable
> papers confirming it. If it were not for academic politics, every scientist
> on earth would be convinced by the results from people such as Fritz Will.
> See:
>


If Jed Rothwell didn't have his OWN agenda, instead of this knee-jerk
response, he would have glossed instead that I am speaking really ONLY of
the '*practical*' engineering outcomes of this basic scientific research --
you know: the shit MOST people are actually INTERESTED in. Like buying a
dirt-cheap water-heater/electricity source/eternal battery/yadda.

Jed Rothwell, scientific researcher extraordinaire, has misunderstood the
easily-grasped (admittedly 'loaded') context of the term 'dead-end' above.

Tsk, tsk.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about
> proton decay.
>

I *totally* disagree. 'Cold Fusion' is clearly a term with mucho
popularizing potential... and most importantly: **it is NOT all that
inaccurate a term, considering its subject-matter**. But it is *precisely*
because of this popularizing potential -- and thus its immediate threat to
certain vested interests -- which is AFAIC the root cause behind all the
attempts to marginalize the term, and make it synonymous with crank
quackery and 'fringe fyzix', etc.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Che  wrote:


> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
> as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
> dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>

The results are not a bit dead end. By the standards of experimental
science, cold fusion results were superb. Practically unprecedented in the
history of science. It was a totally unexpected phenomenon and it is still
not understood, yet within a few years there were hundreds of irrefutable
papers confirming it. If it were not for academic politics, every scientist
on earth would be convinced by the results from people such as Fritz Will.
See:

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

People such as Che mistakenly believe it is a dead end because he reads
mass media lies instead of scientific papers, and because frauds such as
Defkalion and Rossi have lately dominated the field with fake claims. That
never happened from 1989 until Rossi came along. He has almost
single-handedly destroyed the field.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about
proton decay.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
> evidence.  There is none.
> >
> > Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing
> in a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
> >
> > The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
> excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.
>
>
> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
> as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
> dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

That's the sort of thing they muddle up; they say that then go on to start 
talking about warp spacetime, empty space having the properties of a medium and 
faster than light (FTL) et al. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 23:27, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

 #yiv0243928094 #yiv0243928094 -- _filtered #yiv0243928094 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0243928094 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;}#yiv0243928094 #yiv0243928094 p.yiv0243928094MsoNormal, #yiv0243928094 
li.yiv0243928094MsoNormal, #yiv0243928094 div.yiv0243928094MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0243928094 a:link, 
#yiv0243928094 span.yiv0243928094MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0243928094 a:visited, #yiv0243928094 
span.yiv0243928094MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0243928094 
.yiv0243928094MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0243928094 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0243928094 div.yiv0243928094WordSection1 {}#yiv0243928094 
Kevin—   C is a constant and is the speed of light in empty space.  Light  also 
propagates in various media at a speed always below C.  Particles may move at a 
higher velocity than light in a medium, but not in empty space—all this is 
standard physics today.   Bob Cook   From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled   On 7/17/17, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.    

   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>
> Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.
>
> Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing
in a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
>
> The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.


This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Kevin—

C is a constant and is the speed of light in empty space.  Light  also 
propagates in various media at a speed always below C.  Particles may move at a 
higher velocity than light in a medium, but not in empty space—all this is 
standard physics today.

Bob Cook

From: Kevin O'Malley<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I mean by the mainstream relativists, "they" have got it wrong when "they" 
teach it
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:58, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:
 

 all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall 
point out in my next physics talks. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:55, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
 

 On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?  I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.



   

   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall 
point out in my next physics talks. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:55, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
 

 On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?  I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.



   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/17/17, Brian Ahern  wrote:

>
> The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
> excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.
>
 ***What about the NANOR?   And also, what about those 153 peer
reviewed replications of Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event that
Jed cites?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with your assessment. I failed to exceed 200 milliwatts. That was my 
hero result from the EPRI Study in 2012



From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled


Brian’s words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found here 
is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy, aka 
bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some basis 
in observational experimental results they work from, rather what Brian calls 
‘witch doctoring’ is far more akin to the selling of snake oil.



Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil in 
spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to show an 
excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There he’s 
showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold fusion far 
in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades. The folks who 
have succeeded at doing so just haven’t been willing to share their hard won 
know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching for free.



From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled





Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.



Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.



The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.



On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Axil—



With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.



Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

My MS thesis showed the SC in PdD and PdH in 1975. It works every time at 11K 
and 9K respectively.



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:25 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

Martin Fleischmann and others suggested that the hydrogen in a highly loaded 
palladium hydride might be superconducting. Cryogenic metalic hydrogen is a 
superconductor.

I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because it 
would be difficult to test for. I wouldn't rule it out.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because
> it would be difficult to test for.
>

Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of
nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that
finding a tiny amount of superconducting material in a sample that is 99%
not superconducting would be difficult.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Russ—

I agree.

But, on the other hand the 5 folks who did the Lugano testing may be FOS as 
Brian suggests.  

FRC

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Russ George<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian’s words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found here 
is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy, aka 
bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some basis 
in observational experimental results they work from, rather what Brian calls 
‘witch doctoring’ is far more akin to the selling of snake oil.

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil in 
spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to show an 
excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There he’s 
showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold fusion far 
in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades. The folks who 
have succeeded at doing so just haven’t been willing to share their hard won 
know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching for free.

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > ef

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I do not consider it is proper to classifyl Bremsstrahlung radiation  as  gamma 
radiation.  Gammas are associated with nuclear transitions as a result of a 
change of potential energy of ta  nucleus to kinetic energy of a photon IMHO.

You may be right about EM radiation  being given off during hole elimination.  
Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged particle which 
enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of light in the medium. 
 I doubt that the electrons that might move to fill a hole reach a velocity 
greater than C.  A calculation is warranted or an experimental reference may 
help clarify.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 6:14 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in
> a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
>

Martin Fleischmann and others suggested that the hydrogen in a highly
loaded palladium hydride might be superconducting. Cryogenic metalic
hydrogen is a superconductor.

I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because
it would be difficult to test for. I wouldn't rule it out.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Brian's words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found
here is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy,
aka bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some
basis in observational experimental results they work from, rather what
Brian calls 'witch doctoring' is far more akin to the selling of snake oil. 

 

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil
in spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to
show an excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There
he's showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold
fusion far in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades.
The folks who have succeeded at doing so just haven't been willing to share
their hard won know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching
for free. 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

 

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.  

 

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

 

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled 

 

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR
reaction deactivates. 

 

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>  <bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Axil-

 

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing
coupling of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however,
with the transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established
that allow nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react
with production of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the
reaction of a electron and a positron.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com
<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.


On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com
<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism ca

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The pl

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were
pushed out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core.
This movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR
reaction deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil—
>
>
>
> With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing
> coupling of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however,
> with the transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established
> that allow nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react
> with production of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the
> reaction of a electron and a positron.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From: *Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
> *To: *vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled
>
>
>
> Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
> and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
> Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
> it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
> Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.
>
>
> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction
> energy
> > is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> > on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
> >> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
> >> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
> >> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
> >>
> >> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
> >> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
> >> > in
> >> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
> >> based
> >> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
> >> This
> >> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
> >> > effective
> >> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
> >> SmCo5
> >> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
> >> >
> >> > See
> >> >
> >> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
> >> >
> >> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
> >> > magnetic
> >> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
> >> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular
> magnetic
> >> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
> >> >
> >> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
> >> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
> >> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma
> type
> >> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type
> and
> >> has
> >> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
> >> > noncompetitive.
> >> >
> >> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
> >> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
> >> > in
> >> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of
> this
> >> > material under extreme stress over time.
> >> >
> >> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
> >> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
> >> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of
> infrared
> >> > photons into powerful magnetic fields

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
>> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
>> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>> >
>> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and
>> > is
>> > attempting to bring it to market.
>> >
>> > I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
>> nail.
>> > If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it
>> > is
>> > human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate
>> > that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally
>> > resist
>> > rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to
>> the
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Jul 7 (9 days ago)
to vortex-l
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWHPW3-hlUw

This video describes the search for bremsstrahlung radiation as seen in the
MFMP experiment as predicted to occur at the onset of HOLE
superconductivity.

The bremsstrahlung radiation  is produced when electrons are expelled at
near the speed of light from the center of the Polariton BEC by the
meissner effect when the "Hole superconductivity" first begins and again
when the Hole superconductivity is terminated at the end of the LENR
reaction, electrons move back into the positive core of the SPP BEC when
superconductivity and the meissner effect ends.

See

https://jorge.physics.ucsd.edu/hole.html

The sound is bad in the video, but the experimental search is pictured at
6:00 into the video.

IMHO, the  bremsstrahlung radiation seen in the MFMP experiment shows the
onset of HOLE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY in the Polaritons produced to generate the
LENR reaction.

Some background
Author:

  Hamilton Carter
(Texas A\ Univ)

Do superconductors emit x-rays when they quench? Do holes lead double
lives, undressing and pairing up as electrons when it gets cold? Can the
London penetration depth be explained by holes lowering their kinetic
energy and getting... well... fat? An experimental search is underway for
the x-ray radiation predicted by Hirsch's hole theory of superconductivity.
Originally proffered 25 years ago as a model for high temperature
superconductors,, the theory as it now stands applies to all
superconducting materials. The basics of the hole theory of
superconductivity will be presented, followed by a review of our
experiment's design. You'll come away feeling more comfortable with
covalent bonding, hopping amplitudes, Hamiltonians and coherent states.
You'll learn about pulsed magnetic fields and x-ray detection techniques.
You'll be the envy of your friends at parties as you describe both
superconductor theory and cutting edge experiments on the frontier of
modern physics with confidence and aplomb.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil--
>
>
>
> Regarding the observation of gammas at the beginning and end of LENR power
> output, it may be that the controlling magnetic field, B.  passes through
> intensities that allow nuclear transitions without coupling to the
> electronic orbital kinetic angular momentum energy and a change of nuclear
> potential energy to lattice kinetic energy.
>
>
>
> One would expect to see a change in the isotopic composition of the fuel
> compared to the composition resulting from LENR without gammas.
>
>
>
> In addition the gammas may heat the nano-particles of fuel sufficiently to
> quickly change resonances that allowed the reaction producing the gammas
> and favoring the coupling in the coherent nano-particle system to the
> lattice electrons.
>
>
>
> IMHO the function of transient SPP BEC’s  would not be 100% effective at
> shielding gammas routinely produced by a LENR nuclear isotopic transition.
>
>
>
>
> The production of neutral muons or other neutral subatomic particles
> without gammas may be an unrealized problem of some LENR reactions,
> however.  I consider energetic neutrons, if produced, would be readily
> observed.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From: *Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
> *To: *vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled
>
>
>
> Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
> and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
> Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
> it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
> Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.
>
>
> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction
> energy
> > is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> > on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
> >> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
> >> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
> >> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
> >>
> >&g

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil--

Regarding the observation of gammas at the beginning and end of LENR power 
output, it may be that the controlling magnetic field, B.  passes through 
intensities that allow nuclear transitions without coupling to the electronic 
orbital kinetic angular momentum energy and a change of nuclear potential 
energy to lattice kinetic energy.

One would expect to see a change in the isotopic composition of the fuel 
compared to the composition resulting from LENR without gammas.

In addition the gammas may heat the nano-particles of fuel sufficiently to 
quickly change resonances that allowed the reaction producing the gammas and 
favoring the coupling in the coherent nano-particle system to the lattice 
electrons.

IMHO the function of transient SPP BEC’s  would not be 100% effective at 
shielding gammas routinely produced by a LENR nuclear isotopic transition.

The production of neutral muons or other neutral subatomic particles without 
gammas may be an unrealized problem of some LENR reactions, however.  I 
consider energetic neutrons, if produced, would be readily observed.

Bob Cook
From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
<kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
>> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
>> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>> >
>> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

You want the last word? Make another useless email reply.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>> What? You calling me a liar?

>>>
>>> Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nyah, nyah, nyhah, petit-bourgeois swell-head engineer.
>>
>
> Hey, you asked me to call you that! Make up your mind.
>
>
>
>> And for the record: the one who sneers does NOT actually usually USE the
>> word 'sneer'.
>>
>
> Too meta for me. For the record: When the barber shaves those who do not
> shave themselves, does he shave himself?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:46 PM, ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:
>
> 5 Jul at 5:50 PM  said :   So much drama for nothing...
>
>
> does that count as sneering?


No, actually. In this sense here, it is sneering when it is in fact
_unwarranted_, and _gratuitously_ dismissive. However, there are situations
where sneering is in fact 'warranted'... but in that case, such a response
to others' misfortune is considered highly 'not cricket' (i.e. in bad
taste).

Sneering is never constructive. Why they invented the word, OK?

Sheesh. You can take them off the Farm...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Che  wrote:


> What? You calling me a liar?
>>>
>>
>> Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered.
>>
>
>
> Nyah, nyah, nyhah, petit-bourgeois swell-head engineer.
>

Hey, you asked me to call you that! Make up your mind.



> And for the record: the one who sneers does NOT actually usually USE the
> word 'sneer'.
>

Too meta for me. For the record: When the barber shaves those who do not
shave themselves, does he shave himself?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>> Who sneered? Who are "they"?
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>> What? You calling me a liar?
>>
>
> Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered.
>


Nyah, nyah, nyhah, petit-bourgeois swell-head engineer.

Pfft.

On to the science, OK? I see the MFMP has responded to someone who has
apparently sneered at them(??!!)

And for the record: the one who sneers does NOT actually usually USE the
word 'sneer'.
Boy. Some people.








>
>
>> Go read the thread.
>>
>
> I don't see it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

Fusion events, and other nuclear exchanges.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
>> and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
>> Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
>> it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
>> Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> > Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction
>> energy
>> > is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in
>> > place
>> > on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> >> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> >> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> >> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>> >>
>> >> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> >> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For
>> >> > example,
>> >> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested
>> >> > it
>> >> > in
>> >> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction
>> >> > is
>> >> based
>> >> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of
>> >> > mica.
>> >> This
>> >> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> >> > effective
>> >> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> >> SmCo5
>> >> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >> >
>> >> > See
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >> >
>> >> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> >> > magnetic
>> >> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton
>> >> > droplets
>> >> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular
>> magnetic
>> >> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >> >
>> >> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase
>> >> > LENR
>> >> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> >> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma
>> type
>> >> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type
>> and
>> >> has
>> >> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> >> > noncompetitive.
>> >> >
>> >> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> >> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized
>> >> > expertise
>> >> > in
>> >> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of
>> this
>> >> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >> >
>> >> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> >> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor.
>> >> > Polaritons
>> >> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of
>> infrared
>> >> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>> >> >
>> >> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase
>> >> > LENR
>> >> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type
>> >> > and
>> >> > is
>> >> > attempting to bring it to market.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like
>> >> > a
>> >> nail.
>> >> > If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction,
>> >> > it
>> >> > is
>> >> > human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to
>> incorporate
>> >> > that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally
>> >> > resist
>> >> > rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central
>> >> > to
>> >> the
>> >> > survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
>> >> > include a these new experimental results.
>> >> >
>> >> > On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company
>> >> > to
>> >> avoid
>> >> > any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent
>> >> > his
>> >> > experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with
>> >> LENR.
>> >> >
>> >> > To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma
>> >> > type
>> >> LENR
>> >> > reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that
>> >> muons
>> >> > are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take
>> >> > over
>> >> > the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
>> >> > centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 11, 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
> and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
> Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
> it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
> Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.
>
> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction
> energy
> > is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> > on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
> >> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
> >> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
> >> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
> >>
> >> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> >> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
> >> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
> >> > in
> >> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
> >> based
> >> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
> >> This
> >> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
> >> > effective
> >> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
> >> SmCo5
> >> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
> >> >
> >> > See
> >> >
> >> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
> >> >
> >> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
> >> > magnetic
> >> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
> >> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular
> magnetic
> >> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
> >> >
> >> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
> >> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
> >> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma
> type
> >> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type
> and
> >> has
> >> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
> >> > noncompetitive.
> >> >
> >> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
> >> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
> >> > in
> >> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of
> this
> >> > material under extreme stress over time.
> >> >
> >> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
> >> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
> >> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of
> infrared
> >> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
> >> >
> >> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
> >> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and
> >> > is
> >> > attempting to bring it to market.
> >> >
> >> > I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
> >> nail.
> >> > If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it
> >> > is
> >> > human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to
> incorporate
> >> > that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally
> >> > resist
> >> > rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to
> >> the
> >> > survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
> >> > include a these new experimental results.
> >> >
> >> > On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to
> >> avoid
> >> > any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his
> >> > experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with
> >> LENR.
> >> >
> >> > To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma type
> >> LENR
> >> > reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that
> >> muons
> >> > are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take
> >> > over
> >> > the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
> >> > centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM, H LV  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his
> >> >> own
> >> >> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
> >> >>
> >> >> Harry
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley  >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
>> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
>> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>> >
>> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and
>> > is
>> > attempting to bring it to market.
>> >
>> > I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
>> nail.
>> > If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it
>> > is
>> > human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate
>> > that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally
>> > resist
>> > rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to
>> the
>> > survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
>> > include a these new experimental results.
>> >
>> > On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to
>> avoid
>> > any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his
>> > experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with
>> LENR.
>> >
>> > To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma type
>> LENR
>> > reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that
>> muons
>> > are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take
>> > over
>> > the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
>> > centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM, H LV  wrote:
>> >
>> >> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his
>> >> own
>> >> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
>> >>
>> >> Harry
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
>> >>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
>> >>> both sides to administer the test.
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
>> >>> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the
>> >>> device
>> >>> > in Florida worked as he 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

5 Jul at 5:50 PM  said :   So much drama fornothing...

does that count as sneering?

 

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 0:35, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:
 

 Che  wrote: 

Who sneered? Who are "they"?
- Jed


What? You calling me a liar?

Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered.
 
Go read the thread.

I don't see it.
- Jed


   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Che  wrote:


> Who sneered? Who are "they"?
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
> What? You calling me a liar?
>

Okay, have it your way: you're a liar. Now tell us who sneered.



> Go read the thread.
>

I don't see it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>>
> Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do -
>>> they are misguided.
>>>
>>
>> Well they have. Right here. Recently.
>>
>
> Who sneered? Who are "they"?
>
> - Jed
>
>
What? You calling me a liar? Go read the thread.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>
> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in
> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
> based
> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
> This
> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be effective
> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
> SmCo5
> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
> >
> > See
> >
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
> >
> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion magnetic
> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
> >
> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
> has
> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
> > noncompetitive.
> >
> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise in
> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
> > material under extreme stress over time.
> >
> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
> >
> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and is
> > attempting to bring it to market.
> >
> > I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
> > If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it is
> > human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate
> > that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally resist
> > rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to
> the
> > survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
> > include a these new experimental results.
> >
> > On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to
> avoid
> > any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his
> > experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with
> LENR.
> >
> > To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma type
> LENR
> > reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that
> muons
> > are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take over
> > the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
> > centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM, H LV  wrote:
> >
> >> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own
> >> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
> >>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
> >>> both sides to administer the test.
> >>>
> >>> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
> >>> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the
> >>> device
> >>> > in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is
> >>> very
> >>> > likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his
> >>> claim.
> >>> >
> >>> > Harry
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell <
> jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> >>> >>> OJ Simpson...
> >>> >>> > Obviously he was guilty.
> >>> >>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  wrote:
> I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
> Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in
> the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is based
> on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica. This
> reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be effective
> in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a SmCo5
> magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>
> See
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>
> This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion magnetic
> textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
> driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
> anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>
> During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
> reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
> reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
> LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and has
> in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
> noncompetitive.
>
> The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
> temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise in
> material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
> material under extreme stress over time.
>
> The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
> nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
> naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
> photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>
> By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
> reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and is
> attempting to bring it to market.
>
> I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it is
> human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate
> that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally resist
> rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to the
> survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
> include a these new experimental results.
>
> On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to avoid
> any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his
> experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with LENR.
>
> To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma type LENR
> reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that muons
> are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take over
> the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
> centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
>> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own
>> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
>>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
>>> both sides to administer the test.
>>>
>>> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
>>> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the
>>> device
>>> > in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is
>>> very
>>> > likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his
>>> claim.
>>> >
>>> > Harry
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>> >>> OJ Simpson...
>>> >>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>>> >>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed
>>> >>> with
>>> >>> the legal standard.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
>>> >> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>>> >>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>>> >>> different conclusions than you did.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

The gamma ray finding of MFMP was replicated within 48 hours by Hans
Biberian.   And then they just faded away onto whatever it is they've
been doing for 4 years.


On 7/10/17, Che  wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>> I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen
> and nickel together.   There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to
> lead to nuclear products.   3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then
> just blithely started chasing ghosts.
>
> To keep such a risky public research project on-course would require that
> it constantly allow for the democratic, 'Open Source' equivalent of 'peer
> review'.
>
> I seems perhaps this component is what the MFMP is missing. Perhaps not. I
> barely follow this stuff, sadly.
> But I DO know political-economy more than most.
>
> More than Jed, for sure.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

You sound like someone who doesn't want to see LENR succeed.   Seems
about the right position, for a communist.

On 7/11/17, Che  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>> Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors looking to verify Rossi.
> He told them what to test for, and Rossi never had anything to do with
> them.   The only way Rossi is going to find an investor now is to have the
> darned thing tested with true independence, like an investor bringing you
> along.   So this is a healthy thing.
>
>
>
> A significant portion of Humanity has other ideas about the health value of
> letting capitalist 'investors' run amok across the surface of the Planet --
> 'legally' or otherwise. Anyone seeing the involvement of vulture
> capitalists in heterodox fyzix research as being a 'healthy thing' -- given
> the wretched history of it all -- really should go see a doctor.
>
> Better to end up on Patreon, or somesuch.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

That's the whole point of having an independent 3rd party.
Apparently Rossi has the ability to change reality perception when
he's around, similar to Steve Jobs.

On 7/11/17, H LV  wrote:
> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own
> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
>> both sides to administer the test.
>>
>> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
>> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the
>> > device
>> > in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is
>> very
>> > likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his
>> claim.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> >>> OJ Simpson...
>> >>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>> >>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed
>> >>> with
>> >>> the legal standard.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
>> >> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>> >>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>> >>> different conclusions than you did.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the
>> report.
>> >> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions,
>> >> but
>> >> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe
>> >> the
>> >> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
>> >> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place
>> >> in
>> a
>> >> serious discussion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>  At least his next intended victims
>> >>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
>> >>> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
>> >>> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
>> >>> would have that.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the
>> >> QuarkX? Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in
>> Sweden
>> >> where people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new
>> >> scam,
>> >> but maybe he made that up and there are no investors.
>> >>
>> >> - Jed
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

That would be just like him.

On 7/11/17, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. There is still Randell Mills to deal with, and he says he
> can not only heat up a cup of coffee but evaporate it in a burst of
> hydrinos in seconds. He has better credentials than any of us, and he
> has followers who are more loyal than Rossi's.
>
> Prediction: Very soon, Mills will acknowledge that his new device is
> producing radioactivity, BUT he will claim that actually he expected
> this outcome all along; and LENR is his from the start.
>
> He could be right. Bring it on, Randy... 
>
>
> Brian Ahern wrote:
>
>  > I agree with Frank's assessment.
>
>  > From: Frank Znidarsic ...  That's where this has all come to. No
> device was developed to heat a cup of coffee, as Mallove was requested
> to produce.  27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee.  I worked on
> this technology hard for some time.  I felt it was coming.  I am now
> embarrassed by my optimistic comments.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—

You may be right.  The trial results promised to be a lose-lose situation for 
all concerned: settlement a win-win situation for all concerned.

It does suggest that Woodford Investments and Darden, etal., have a common 
strategy regarding venture capital expenditures—protect existing investments in 
alternate energy source investments and fossil fuel based  energy.

Sifferkoll’s blog has addressed this issue in the past.

Bob Cook










From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device in 
Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is very likely 
that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his claim.

Harry

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:
OJ Simpson...
> Obviously he was guilty.
***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
the legal standard.

I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common sense 
standards he is guilty of fraud.


> All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
different conclusions than you did.

Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the report. 
Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but they 
have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the post hoc 
lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in photographs. Such 
"conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in a serious discussion.


 At least his next intended victims
> have the court docket to warn them off.
***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
would have that.

I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the QuarkX? 
Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in Sweden where people 
want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new scam, but maybe he made 
that up and there are no investors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

Russ:

No one asked you to join this discussion.   You don't like it, just
ignore it.   Huge duhh factor.

On 7/11/17, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn’t someone here have a toilet plunger to help the damned vortex flush
> out all the turds that are stuck here. This endless trollification by the
> unflushable malcontents that did not get their free feed in the trial are
> festering into a terrible stench. Give it a f*ckng break or at least go see
> your doctors and get some new meds, there are remarkably good meds for
> senile agitation these days.
>
>
>
> From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM
> To: Vortex
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled
>
>
>
> Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com <mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.
>
>
>
> Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is
> the reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money.
> There is no point to suing someone who cannot pay. Here is another possible
> reason. Lawyers tell me that it was mainly a contract dispute, and I.H.'s
> counter-suit regarding the contract was weak.
>
>
>
> I myself have no idea why they settled. However, I am sure the Penon report
> is not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was
> a gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because
> Florida is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of
> that.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you
> are, and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because what
> do those scientists know, anyway? They are a bunch of elitist know-it-alls
> with their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of themselves, they think
> that when you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine with pipes running to the
> ceiling, the image has to show up in the camera! Why can't it be
> invisible??? Huh? You tell me! And it was equipped with an anti-gravity
> machine which is why the mezzanine didn't collapse. You didn't think of
> THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Che  wrote:


>
Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do -
>> they are misguided.
>>
>
> Well they have. Right here. Recently.
>

Who sneered? Who are "they"?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Che wrote
>
> People here sneer at the likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial
> Project.. but say what you will: its very OPEN [Source] nature is what
> *will* at least keep it out of the grubby clutches of moneyed-interests.
>
>
> Not so - no one here that I am aware of - sneers at MFMP. Or if they do -
> they are misguided.
>

Well they have. Right here. Recently.




Just the opposite - in fact, a version of "open-source" is the way of the
> future for LENR... but it needs refinement. For instance, patents can be a
> necessary evil - if only to keep patent trolls from jumping in and
> obtaining one first.
>

Patents are 'necessary', like locks on your doors are necessary. There was
a time in the past when door-locks were UN-necessary -- and there will come
again a time where they will become a relic of our barbaric Past (Present).
I prefer to focus positively, on the contents of the house.






>
> The main thing needed for continuing cash flow for the research is the
> promise of some kind of future reward for the funder. It is easily possible
> to merge capitalism and optimized R into a mutually acceptable package.
>

NO. The FOSS software Movement is proof enuff that monetary reward is NOT
the main, essential motivation for the creative process -- whatever paid
propagandists continually and relentlessly say (and whatever particular
details don't really match my claim). However, money *does indeed* become a
crucial issue, when a chronic lack of resources poses an obstacle to
further creative effort (and in fact, the ruling-class *consciously*
starves society generally, of resources -- in order to maintain _precisely_
this sort of control over us). Even now, the heroic 'cool' days of Silicon
Valley (more myth, than anything) are essentially over: and the usual
corporate interests _assert_ those interests more and more, in computer
technology. They DO want a ROI.

However, that 'cool' model of 'hip', enlightened, Yuppie investors does not
appear to work in such a chance-y field as cold fusion research. Too much
'up-front' risk, right?

We require a steady, *public* -- OPEN -- source of funding: and should
commensurately be demanding the public OPEN release of any and all
scientific theoretical and research findings.





>
> In short, it is possible to "keep it out of the grubby clutches of
> moneyed-interests" and at the same time provide a decent return on
> investment in a vehicle for continuing R funding -- which does not demand
> that the inventor has to subsidize his own efforts.
>
> The end result can be win-win, whereas a complete abdication of IP is not
> going to be as efficient. In fact, it is brain-dead in the era of patent
> trolls. I think MFMP realizes this dynamic.
>

This is pie-in-the-sky, AFAIC. The World does not work this way. Or not for
long, anyway. Mixing in 'patent trolls' at the end here is only obfuscating
the issue: the primacy, Über Alles, of 'private property', in our barbaric
times -- and its crushing effect upon true 'innovation'.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> Mary Yugo said he was contacted by investors looking to verify Rossi.
He told them what to test for, and Rossi never had anything to do with
them.   The only way Rossi is going to find an investor now is to have the
darned thing tested with true independence, like an investor bringing you
along.   So this is a healthy thing.



A significant portion of Humanity has other ideas about the health value of
letting capitalist 'investors' run amok across the surface of the Planet --
'legally' or otherwise. Anyone seeing the involvement of vulture
capitalists in heterodox fyzix research as being a 'healthy thing' -- given
the wretched history of it all -- really should go see a doctor.

Better to end up on Patreon, or somesuch.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Daniel Rocha]

Now that Rossi has much more free time, I expect him to have bold strides
in making new devices. The bad times are now past!

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in
the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is based
on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica. This
reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be effective
in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a SmCo5
magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.

See

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184

This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion magnetic
textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction

During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and has
in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
noncompetitive.

The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise in
material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
material under extreme stress over time.

The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
photons into powerful magnetic fields.

By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and is
attempting to bring it to market.

I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it is
human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate
that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally resist
rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to the
survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially
include a these new experimental results.

On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to avoid
any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his
experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with LENR.

To top things off, sooner or later, someone will test the plasma type LENR
reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that muons
are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take over
the LENR tech and produce a muon activated thorium based large scale
centralized grid connected gigawatt level fission power station.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55 AM, H LV  wrote:

> If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own
> data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
>> both sides to administer the test.
>>
>> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
>> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the
>> device
>> > in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is
>> very
>> > likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his
>> claim.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> >>> OJ Simpson...
>> >>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>> >>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
>> >>> the legal standard.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
>> >> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>> >>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>> >>> different conclusions than you did.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the
>> report.
>> >> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
>> >> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
>> >> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
>> >> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place
>> in a
>> >> serious discussion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>  At least his next intended victims
>> >>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
>> >>> ***Well if 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[H LV]

If that is true then Rossi either lacks the ability to interpret his own
data or he intentionally misrepresented his data.

Harry

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
> both sides to administer the test.
>
> On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
> > Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device
> > in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is
> very
> > likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his
> claim.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> >>> OJ Simpson...
> >>> > Obviously he was guilty.
> >>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
> >>> the legal standard.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
> >> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
> >>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
> >>> different conclusions than you did.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the
> report.
> >> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
> >> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
> >> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
> >> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in
> a
> >> serious discussion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  At least his next intended victims
> >>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
> >>> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
> >>> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
> >>> would have that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the
> >> QuarkX? Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in
> Sweden
> >> where people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new
> >> scam,
> >> but maybe he made that up and there are no investors.
> >>
> >> - Jed
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jones Beene]

Wait a minute. There is still Randell Mills to deal with, and he says he 
can not only heat up a cup of coffee but evaporate it in a burst of 
hydrinos in seconds. He has better credentials than any of us, and he 
has followers who are more loyal than Rossi's.


Prediction: Very soon, Mills will acknowledge that his new device is 
producing radioactivity, BUT he will claim that actually he expected 
this outcome all along; and LENR is his from the start.


He could be right. Bring it on, Randy... 


Brian Ahern wrote:

> I agree with Frank's assessment.

> From: Frank Znidarsic ...  That's where this has all come to. No 
device was developed to heat a cup of coffee, as Mallove was requested 
to produce.  27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee.  I worked on 
this technology hard for some time.  I felt it was coming.  I am now 
embarrassed by my optimistic comments.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

R Mills is producing a teacup full of self sustaining 3000C plasma. Don't
worry be happy.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Frank Znidarsic 
wrote:

>
> endless spewing of hate
>
>
>
>
> That's where this has all come to.   No device was developed to heat a cup
> of coffee, as Mallove was
> requested to produce.   27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee.
> I worked on this technology hard for some time.  I felt it was coming.  I
> am now embarrassed by my optimistic comments.
>
> All we have left are lawsuits and hate.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with Frank's assessment.



From: Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled


endless spewing of hate



That's where this has all come to.   No device was developed to heat a cup of 
coffee, as Mallove was
requested to produce.   27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee.   I 
worked on this technology hard for some time.  I felt it was coming.  I am now 
embarrassed by my optimistic comments.

All we have left are lawsuits and hate.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

Obscenity is also the endless spewing of hate that comes from your mouth.
> Your hate mongering is amongst the most obscene that takes place on Vortex.
>

I suggest you block my messages.

If you wish to know why I am opposed to Rossi, I suggest you read the Penon
report and the reports by Murray and Smith.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0235.01_Exhibit_1.pdf

If these reports do not upset you, I think your judgement is flawed.

How much damage does Rossi have to do before you denounce him? I.H. may
have been the last source of funding for cold fusion, and Rossi probably
destroyed it. I.H. withdrew funding for the next ICCF conference because
they had to spend so much on the trial. There does not appear to be a
replacement. If those are not sufficient reasons to hate him, what would be?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Frank Znidarsic]

endless spewing of hate 




That's where this has all come to.   No device was developed to heat a cup of 
coffee, as Mallove was 
requested to produce.   27 years later there is no cup of warm coffee.   I 
worked on this technology hard for some time.  I felt it was coming.  I am now 
embarrassed by my optimistic comments.


All we have left are lawsuits and hate.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Obscenity is also the endless spewing of hate that comes from your mouth. Your 
hate mongering is amongst the most obscene that takes place on Vortex. And of 
your take or leave it advice that is classic troll-speak that has always been 
the pitiful recourse of those who do nothing but pontificate from their arm 
chairs. Get a real life. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

This endless trollification by the unflushable malcontents that did not get 
their free feed in the trial are festering into a terrible stench. Give it a 
f*ckng break or at least go see your doctors and get some new meds, there are 
remarkably good meds for senile agitation these days.

 

Obscenity is uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read messages here. If you 
do not wish to read a message, you can ignore it or delete it. If you do not 
wish to see anything from an author, you can block him.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

This endless trollification by the unflushable malcontents that did not get
> their free feed in the trial are festering into a terrible stench. Give it
> a f*ckng break or at least go see your doctors and get some new meds, there
> are remarkably good meds for senile agitation these days.
>

Obscenity is uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read messages here. If
you do not wish to read a message, you can ignore it or delete it. If you
do not wish to see anything from an author, you can block him.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Doesn’t someone here have a toilet plunger to help the damned vortex flush out 
all the turds that are stuck here. This endless trollification by the 
unflushable malcontents that did not get their free feed in the trial are 
festering into a terrible stench. Give it a f*ckng break or at least go see 
your doctors and get some new meds, there are remarkably good meds for senile 
agitation these days. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com <mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.

 

Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is the 
reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money. There is 
no point to suing someone who cannot pay. Here is another possible reason. 
Lawyers tell me that it was mainly a contract dispute, and I.H.'s counter-suit 
regarding the contract was weak.

 

I myself have no idea why they settled. However, I am sure the Penon report is 
not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was a 
gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because Florida 
is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of that.

 

Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you are, 
and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because what do 
those scientists know, anyway? They are a bunch of elitist know-it-alls with 
their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of themselves, they think that when 
you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine with pipes running to the ceiling, the 
image has to show up in the camera! Why can't it be invisible??? Huh? You tell 
me! And it was equipped with an anti-gravity machine which is why the mezzanine 
didn't collapse. You didn't think of THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is
> the reason.
***You don't have to be involved at that level.   If the report was a
slam dunk either way it would have compelled the outcome of the case.
 It wasn't a slam dunk for Rossi enough for him to move forward to get
$89M and it wasn't a slam dunk enough for IH to keep in there.




  However, I am sure the Penon report
> is not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was
> a gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because
> Florida is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of
> that.
***If it was that much of a slamdunk, then IH would have ridden it all
the way to the goal line.   They didn't.


>
> Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you
> are, and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because
> what do those scientists know, anyway?
***Apparently those scientists are as arrogant as you are but they
don't meet your 3rd grade qualification.


They are a bunch of elitist
> know-it-alls with their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of
> themselves, they think that when you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine
> with pipes running to the ceiling, the image has to show up in the camera!
***Again, it should have been a slam dunk to hear you tell it.   But
it was NOT a slam dunk.


> Why can't it be invisible??? Huh? You tell me! And it was equipped with an
> anti-gravity machine which is why the mezzanine didn't collapse. You didn't
> think of THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.
***You make it sound so simple.   So much of a slam dunk.   If it were
that simple, that much of a slam dunk, IH wouldn't have settled.
There is a huge duhh factor here that any third grader can see.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.
>

Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is
the reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money.
There is no point to suing someone who cannot pay. Here is another possible
reason. Lawyers tell me that it was mainly a contract dispute, and I.H.'s
counter-suit regarding the contract was weak.

I myself have no idea why they settled. However, I am sure the Penon report
is not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was
a gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because
Florida is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of that.

Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you
are, and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because
what do those scientists know, anyway? They are a bunch of elitist
know-it-alls with their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of
themselves, they think that when you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine
with pipes running to the ceiling, the image has to show up in the camera!
Why can't it be invisible??? Huh? You tell me! And it was equipped with an
anti-gravity machine which is why the mezzanine didn't collapse. You didn't
think of THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.

I'm glad to see you got a start on delineating all the scientific
charlatanism in that report and in the case.

On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
>> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
>> both sides to administer the test.
>>
>
> You mean the report that claims the laboratory was in a perfect vacuum, and
> the flow was EXACTLY the same, to the nearest 1,000 liters, for days on
> end.
>
> The report lacks credibility, to say the very least.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
> some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
> both sides to administer the test.
>

You mean the report that claims the laboratory was in a perfect vacuum, and
the flow was EXACTLY the same, to the nearest 1,000 liters, for days on end.

The report lacks credibility, to say the very least.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/10/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


>
> I cannot judge legal standards.
***Then stop using a legal term.   It's like saying that by scientific
standards and by common sense standards your neighbor is guilty of
armed robbery.   If there were "scientific standards" to begin with,
we wouldn't be in this mess:  LENR would be ubiquitous, Hot Fusion
would be dead, some guys at MIT would be just now getting out of jail,
and we'd all be driving nonpolluting LENR cars.   When there are no
standards in place it's like a junkie complaining that a drug dealer
ripped him off--who's he gonna go to, the police?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=j==s=web=3=rja=8=0ahUKEwi29OvZ3f_UAhUKS2MKHZa_BUkQFgg3MAI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.insideedition.com%2Fheadlines%2F12185-police-woman-called-911-to-complain-about-her-drug-dealer=AFQjCNGC4fSNv4LfafSJ-RaV4tx2r9g64g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

You're probably right.   But there is evidence he had a COP > 1 for
some length of time according to the report by the person chosen by
both sides to administer the test.

On 7/10/17, H LV  wrote:
> Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device
> in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is very
> likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his claim.
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>> OJ Simpson...
>>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
>>> the legal standard.
>>>
>>
>> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
>> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>>> different conclusions than you did.
>>>
>>
>> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the report.
>> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
>> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
>> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
>> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in a
>> serious discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  At least his next intended victims
>>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
>>> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
>>> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
>>> would have that.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the
>> QuarkX? Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in Sweden
>> where people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new
>> scam,
>> but maybe he made that up and there are no investors.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen
and nickel together.   There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to
lead to nuclear products.   3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then
just blithely started chasing ghosts.

To keep such a risky public research project on-course would require that
it constantly allow for the democratic, 'Open Source' equivalent of 'peer
review'.

I seems perhaps this component is what the MFMP is missing. Perhaps not. I
barely follow this stuff, sadly.
But I DO know political-economy more than most.

More than Jed, for sure.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[H LV]

Rossi was suing IH for millions of dollars, so he had to prove the device
in Florida worked as he claimed. If the trial proceeded I think it is very
likely that the preponderance of the evidence would not support his claim.

Harry

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> OJ Simpson...
>> > Obviously he was guilty.
>> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
>> the legal standard.
>>
>
> I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common
> sense standards he is guilty of fraud.
>
>
>
>> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
>> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
>> different conclusions than you did.
>>
>
> Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the report.
> Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
> they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
> post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
> photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in a
> serious discussion.
>
>
>
>>  At least his next intended victims
>> > have the court docket to warn them off.
>> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
>> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
>> would have that.
>>
>
> I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the
> QuarkX? Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in Sweden
> where people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new scam,
> but maybe he made that up and there are no investors.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> OJ Simpson...
> > Obviously he was guilty.
> ***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
> the legal standard.
>

I cannot judge legal standards. By scientific standards and by common sense
standards he is guilty of fraud.



> > All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
> ***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
> different conclusions than you did.
>

Not as far as I know. Some people such as Axil refuse to read the report.
Others people claim they read it and reached different conclusions, but
they have not given any reasons. A few are so gullible they believe the
post hoc lies about invisible heat exchangers that do not show in
photographs. Such "conclusions" are so irrational they have no place in a
serious discussion.



>  At least his next intended victims
> > have the court docket to warn them off.
> ***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
> scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
> would have that.
>

I have no idea what his next scheme will be. Perhaps it will be the QuarkX?
Rossi told Lewan in the interview that he is setting up in Sweden where
people want to invest. I suppose that means he has begun a new scam, but
maybe he made that up and there are no investors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/9/17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
OJ Simpson...
> Obviously he was guilty.
***Then obviously Rossi is Not Guilty of Fraud.   You just agreed with
the legal standard.


> All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes.
***Bullshit.  Plenty of others have read the report and came to
different conclusions than you did.


 At least his next intended victims
> have the court docket to warn them off.
***Well if you were to write a point by point delineation of all the
scientific claims that are fraud then his next "intended victims"
would have that.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

 Jed Rothwell
5:36 PM (5 hours ago)



Nope. The legal system does not sue scientists for publishing fraudulent or
idiotic reports.
***The legal system brings its resources to bear upon scientists who scam
others with fraudulent reports.

 One reason is that no one can tell fools and frauds apart. When I first
saw Penon's data I though Penon and Rossi were fools, and I could see they
were copying data from one day to the next, which is borderline fraud, but
I never imagined they were engaged in wholesale fraud. The full report plus
the report from Murray are proof of that.
***You keep saying proof and you keep using the legal term 'fraud'.   If
you had proof of your neighbor committing armed robbery, the police would
round him up.   What you have is evidence that didn't even stand up in a
civil court.   It is far from proof and in fact it is proof that Rossi
could not be convicted of the crime.   So it's just you huffing and puffing
at this point.


If the legal system were to arrest scientists for stupid mistakes and bad
reports, most scientists would be in jail. As Bohr said, an expert is
someone who has made every possible mistake.
***They only go after those who use those stupid mistakes and deliberately
bad reports to scam investors.   That's what fraud is.   Not what you keep
saying it is.

The police also do not investigate people who pretend to have heat
exchangers and who do bad calorimetry.
***They would if it were proof of fraud.


 There are dozens of dishonest people selling fake over-unit engines
(perpetual motion machines). Even when they take large sums of money from
the public, the police do not bother them, as far as I know. Perhaps they
should, but they don't.
***As far as I know there have been some charlatan pseudoscientists put in
jail for defrauding the public.


  Kevmo: All the other stuff would be icing on the cake.   But Rossi is not
up on charges.   The standard of proof for civil cases (fraud in this case)
is "preponderance of evidence" and IH couldn't make the case.

Jed:  I don't know if they could or not.
***They settled!   That means they couldn't make the case!




The main point I want to make is that regardless of what the legal system
rules are, or preponderance of this or that, anyone with technical
knowledge can see from the Penon report that Rossi is a fraud.
***If that is such a strong case then IH would have had a slam dunk and
also the authorities would be rounding up Rossi as a fraud.


If you can't see that, you don't have technical knowledge. Or you blinded
by wishful thinking. Insofar as this is a technical debate based on
scientific & engineering laws, divorced from the legal system and its
standard of proof, there is no doubt Rossi is a liar and a fake.
***That's the problem with science.   Like when Al Gore said "there was no
controlling legal authority", in science there is no controlling authority
when someone is a liar and a fake.   For instance, when MIT fraudulently
changed their data to show a null result rather than a positive Anomalous
Heating Event.   There's no one to say:  "Those guys are frikken liars and
we're putting them in jail".   But such is not the case with the legal
community, and people are regularly put in jail for defrauding investors.
 So if I were you I'd start choosing a different term than fraud to
describe Rossi, maybe something like scientific charlatan, which is the
same term I would use for those MIT jerks.

 .

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> You would have to show intent and various legal proof that I do not
>> understand.
>>
> ​***If you don't understand it then you're just as bad as these people you
> rail against for not reading the Penon report.
>

I don't claim to understand the legal aspects of this! I never said I
understand them. I cannot judge whether Rossi would have won or lost the
lawsuit. That's why I am glad it was called off. I am ONLY judging the
issues from the scientific point of view.



>   It is simple reasoning to proceed from "preponderance of evidence"
> burden of proof having failed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" obviously
> failing.
>

I wouldn't know about that. I cannot judge. I have seen lawsuits that went
terribly wrong and deviated from scientific standards. Experienced lawyers
told me that sometimes people such as Rossi bamboozle juries. The whole
business does not sound "simple" to me. From a scientific point of view,
the evidence was 10 light years "beyond a reasonable doubt," but whether
that same standard applies to legal proceedings and court cases I cannot
say.



>   To see the whole thing in reverse, just look at OJ Simpson.   The
> authorities failed to prove he murdered 2 people even with extraordinarily
> strong DNAjklkjevidence, but the civil suit found him to be guilty of
> causing their deaths.
>

Obviously he was guilty. This goes to show the legal system and the courts
are not always rational or scientific. Examples like this are why I worried
about a jury giving Rossi the money.



> ​***Based on your reaction, you have succumbed to the emotion surrounding
> this case.
>

All I did was read the Penon report. That's all it takes. I did not even
read all the stuff about Rossi pretending to have a company and negotiating
with himself. It is a laugh and a half and it shows he is a criminal, but I
didn't bother reading it. Other people quoted it. I don't care about
Rossi's lies other than the technical ones.



> If all that stuff is so provably fraudulent then IH would have moved
> forward.   It is NOT provable.
>

It is provable if you understand elementary thermdynamics and grade school
level science. Read Smith if you want to see what I mean. IH's decision not
to move forward might have been based on factors unrelated to the science.
As I said, maybe they found out that Rossi is broke. You can't squeeze
blood from a turnip. Maybe they feared another jury like the O.J. Simpson
one. Who knows? I do not have a clue what happened. Frankly, it is none of
my business and I don't care. The only thing that bothers me is that Rossi
will now go out and swindle a new group of people. I have heard he has
already started to do this, in Sweden. At least his next intended victims
have the court docket to warn them off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> The Penon report?!?
>>
> ​***ALL of it.   The Penon report, the supposed heat exchanger, all of it.
>   If the Penon report is as fraudulent as you make it out to  be, then
> Rossi would be up on charges for that.
>

Nope. The legal system does not sue scientists for publishing fraudulent or
idiotic reports. One reason is that no one can tell fools and frauds apart.
When I first saw Penon's data I though Penon and Rossi were fools, and I
could see they were copying data from one day to the next, which is
borderline fraud, but I never imagined they were engaged in wholesale
fraud. The full report plus the report from Murray are proof of that.

If the legal system were to arrest scientists for stupid mistakes and bad
reports, most scientists would be in jail. As Bohr said, an expert is
someone who has made every possible mistake.

The police also do not investigate people who pretend to have heat
exchangers and who do bad calorimetry. There are dozens of dishonest people
selling fake over-unit engines (perpetual motion machines). Even when they
take large sums of money from the public, the police do not bother them, as
far as I know. Perhaps they should, but they don't.



>   All the other stuff would be icing on the cake.   But Rossi is not up on
> charges.   The standard of proof for civil cases (fraud in this case) is
> "preponderance of evidence" and IH couldn't make the case.
>

I don't know if they could or not. Perhaps they concluded Rossi has no
money. Perhaps they feared a jury of fools might award Rossi instead.
That's what worried me. All in all, I am glad the whole thing was dropped
with prejudice, even though I wanted to see Rossi get his comeuppance.

The main point I want to make is that regardless of what the legal system
rules are, or preponderance of this or that, anyone with technical
knowledge can see from the Penon report that Rossi is a fraud. If you can't
see that, you don't have technical knowledge. Or you blinded by wishful
thinking. Insofar as this is a technical debate based on scientific &
engineering laws, divorced from the legal system and its standard of proof,
there is no doubt Rossi is a liar and a fake.

Perhaps you disagree. If so, you are mistaken. End of story.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think the key is to just find nuclear products when you throw hydrogen
and nickel together.   There is no chemical reaction that is supposed to
lead to nuclear products.   3 years ago, MFMP found gamma rays and then
just blithely started chasing ghosts.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have the means can
>> do in our garages, the cat is out of the bag.
>>
>
> That may never happen. It may be that cold fusion is inherently difficult,
> like making a fuel cell or performing an appendectomy. We may never see a
> method that can be done in a garage by a non-expert. Let us hope cold
> fusion can succeed without this.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ​
>
> The Penon report?!?
>
​***ALL of it.   The Penon report, the supposed heat exchanger, all of it.
  If the Penon report is as fraudulent as you make it out to  be, then
Rossi would be up on charges for that.   All the other stuff would be icing
on the cake.   But Rossi is not up on charges.   The standard of proof for
civil cases (fraud in this case) is "preponderance of evidence" and IH
couldn't make the case.  The standard of proof for criminal cases is
higher, "beyond a reasonable doubt".   So if you can't meet the lower
standard, you can't meet the higher standard.   Therefore, there is legal
proof that Rossi is NOT a fraud.  ​




> Either you haven't read it or your interpretation of it is the extreme
> opposite or what Murray, Smith and I think of it. I have never seen such
> blatant, in-your-face fraud. If this report does not convince you Rossi is
> a crook, nothing will.
>
​***If it is so blatant and in-your-face fraud, then Rossi should be up on
charges and IH should have pressed forward.   They didn't, because it is
neither blatant nor in-your-face.   ​


>
>
>
>> ​
>>
>
> You cannot "file charges" based on the laws of thermodynamics
>
​***I didn't say it was based on science, it was based upon LEGAL
principles.   The Legal case against Rossi is proof that he is not a fraud.
   If the scientific case is so blatant then you should write a paper on
it.   It would be easy, if you're so right.




> and an idiotic report that would fail a junior high school class.
>
​***These independent reports associated with Rossi have fooled PhD
physicists, not junior high schoolers.   Your exaggerations just don't meet
with reality on the ground.​




> It is not a crime to publish fake data.
>
​***It is a crime to use fake data to defraud investors.  Some of these
frauds who have pushed the envelope of fake data ended up in prison.   That
is where Rossi should be if what you are saying is the verifiable truth,
but such is not the case because all that stuff is tied up in a bow as
evidence sworn in, and the law is not pursuing it.  ​




> You would have to show intent and various legal proof that I do not
> understand.
>
​***If you don't understand it then you're just as bad as these people you
rail against for not reading the Penon report.   It is simple reasoning to
proceed from "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof having failed to
"beyond a reasonable doubt" obviously failing.   To see the whole thing in
reverse, just look at OJ Simpson.   The authorities failed to prove he
murdered 2 people even with extraordinarily strong DNAjklkjevidence,
but the civil suit found him to be guilty of causing their deaths.   If the
civil suit had come first and he was found not guilty, no one would have
moved forward on the criminal case.   ​




> I.H. apparently decided not to pursue the civil law suit. Since I know so
> little about the law, whatever their lawyers advised I would go along with.
> But that changes nothing about the scientific content of the report. It is
> fraudulent nonsense. I cannot imagine why you and others do not see this,
> but based on your reaction, I begin to see why the Flat Earth Society still
> exists.
>
​***Based on your reaction, you have succumbed to the emotion surrounding
this case.   If all that stuff is so provably fraudulent then IH would have
moved forward.   It is NOT provable.   ​My

​suggestion is to use your emotional state to generate something for
everyone to benefit from:  write a report delineating every instance of
scientific fraud entered into the docket as evidence.   If life gives you
lemons, make lemonade.  ​

>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have the means can
> do in our garages, the cat is out of the bag.
>

That may never happen. It may be that cold fusion is inherently difficult,
like making a fuel cell or performing an appendectomy. We may never see a
method that can be done in a garage by a non-expert. Let us hope cold
fusion can succeed without this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

It is proof that he isn't a fraud.
>

The Penon report?!? Either you haven't read it or your interpretation of it
is the extreme opposite or what Murray, Smith and I think of it. I have
never seen such blatant, in-your-face fraud. If this report does not
convince you Rossi is a crook, nothing will.



>   All the evidence is there, tagged and bagged, ready to go for the police
> to file charges.
>

You cannot "file charges" based on the laws of thermodynamics and an
idiotic report that would fail a junior high school class. It is not a
crime to publish fake data. You would have to show intent and various legal
proof that I do not understand. I.H. apparently decided not to pursue the
civil law suit. Since I know so little about the law, whatever their
lawyers advised I would go along with. But that changes nothing about the
scientific content of the report. It is fraudulent nonsense. I cannot
imagine why you and others do not see this, but based on your reaction, I
begin to see why the Flat Earth Society still exists.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

It is proof that he isn't a fraud.   All the evidence is there, tagged and
bagged, ready to go for the police to file charges.   All it takes is for
someone to drop a dime on Rossi.   Maybe you'll get some kind of reward for
it.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges.
>
>
> Only if it were a serious crime. Most crimes are not even investigated,
> for lack of police personnel. Also, the police would have to understand the
> report. I doubt many of them do. The large number of Rossi supporters who
> see nothing wrong with the report demonstrate that it is easy to bamboozle
> the public with fake data.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> Rossi is the latest LENR guy who has $signs in his eyes.   Patterson was
a solid example of that.   I like the hope that MFMP offers to circumvent
that problem.   As soon as they verify a LENR experiment that many who have
the means can do in our garages, the cat is out of the bag.

A lot of people here sneer at the MFMP, for some reason... and yet
*PUBLIC*, Open-Source Science is the ONLY way forward for a truly 'free'
Humanity. NOT 'private property', 'Free Markets' and 'patents', and all
that most-dubious, proprietary, claim-jumping, patent-trolling 'capitalist'
opportunist shite.





> MIT Professor Hagelstein was going to sell NANORs for a few thousand
dollars but that appears to have gone nowhere.

Me and a few others are still waiting to buy our Orbos. What's with all
this starry-eyed initial promise, just up and always disappearing once
*money* becomes the apparent object..?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges.


Only if it were a serious crime. Most crimes are not even investigated, for
lack of police personnel. Also, the police would have to understand the
report. I doubt many of them do. The large number of Rossi supporters who
see nothing wrong with the report demonstrate that it is easy to bamboozle
the public with fake data.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[H LV]

Woodford Investments probably does not want Industrial Heat pursuing the
matter.

Harry

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges.
>
> On Friday, July 7, 2017, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah? Who the hell are you accusing of "spin, astroturfing and propaganda
>> produced by I.H." if not me? Who else? If you are not accusing me, you are
>> accusing other people who support I.H., which is just as bad. You have not
>> even READ THE EVIDENCE and yet you are sure that we are spinning
>> propaganda!
>>
>> Whoever you are attacking with these false allegations, take it elsewhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Both Rossi and IH descended into a war of words, IH more effectively
>>> that Rossi.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Rossi is a fraud who tried to steal $267 million from I.H.
>> There was no "war of words" because I.H. said practically nothing during
>> the entire lawsuit. Nothing! All they did was defend their interests.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I hope that the gatekeepers and prominent actors in LENR will guard
>>> against any damage that IH is tempted to do to LENR in the same way that
>>> they did regarding Defkalion.
>>>
>>
>> I.H. has done a lot of good supporting many researchers. The only person
>> who has hurt cold fusion in the last few years is Rossi. YOU can't judge
>> because you don't even have the guts to look at Rossi's own report which
>> proves he is a thief.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

If Rossi's report proves he is a thief then he would be up on charges.

On Friday, July 7, 2017, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  > wrote:
>
> I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed.
>>
>
> Yeah? Who the hell are you accusing of "spin, astroturfing and propaganda
> produced by I.H." if not me? Who else? If you are not accusing me, you are
> accusing other people who support I.H., which is just as bad. You have not
> even READ THE EVIDENCE and yet you are sure that we are spinning
> propaganda!
>
> Whoever you are attacking with these false allegations, take it elsewhere.
>
>
>
>> Both Rossi and IH descended into a war of words, IH more effectively that
>> Rossi.
>>
>
> Bullshit. Rossi is a fraud who tried to steal $267 million from I.H. There
> was no "war of words" because I.H. said practically nothing during the
> entire lawsuit. Nothing! All they did was defend their interests.
>
>
>
>> I hope that the gatekeepers and prominent actors in LENR will guard
>> against any damage that IH is tempted to do to LENR in the same way that
>> they did regarding Defkalion.
>>
>
> I.H. has done a lot of good supporting many researchers. The only person
> who has hurt cold fusion in the last few years is Rossi. YOU can't judge
> because you don't even have the guts to look at Rossi's own report which
> proves he is a thief.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

The Gamma Ray thing happened in 2013, that was the link I posted.   I am
glad to see someone at MFMP taking this seriously.

On Friday, July 7, 2017, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an
> unsuccessful replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it),
> and we cannot say there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat
>   was less than the error of the crude calorimeter measurement…
>
>
>
> … I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it,
> with a more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building
> and a small amount of funding.
>
>
>
> Kevin writes:
>
> That means you have not been pursuing it.   It's been 4 years and
> basically no mention on the MFMP blog.
>
>
>
> I assume here that “you” means MFMP.  MFMP’s Bob Higgins is currently
> performing a series of automated experiments (at least 2 are completed)
> which utilize a NaI Detector (as well as other detectors), also looking for
> the “Gamma Ray Thing” (X-ray signal).  As far as I’m aware, nothing has
> shown up, so far.  Have you been following the experiments on LENR-Forum?
> Each experiment not showing any signal, is interesting information.  We
> still don’t know if the signal could have been an artifact unless we
> reproduce it…
>
>
>
> The Signal (or Gamma Ray Thing), occurred in February of 2016.  The
> replication attempt ended in late May, 2016.  The analysis ended about a
> month after that.  It’s been about 12 months since then. During those 12
> months, MFMP has spent time building Neutron Detectors, beefing up the
> experiment automation for the subsequent experiment (not a replication
> attempt but using the same NaI Detector setup) using the built-up equipment
> (reported on QuantumHeat.Org, but no signal seen), prepping for the Me356 &
> Ecco Tests and performing the Me356 Test (amongst other things)…
>
>
>
> … If “you” meant myself, I’ve been spending every bit of my available time
> in those 12 months, working on a follow-up experiment with a better shot at
> seeing the signal once again, if the group doesn’t see it. I suppose that
> there will come a time when the group realizes that this is the direction
> we should go in, and we all work towards that goal.  In the meantime,  I
> think it’s important for me to give MFMP the space/time it needs to pursue
> other directions it deems as fruitful, until we are all back on the same
> page.  If not, I am happy to continue towards the goal of increasing the
> success of seeing the signal when we are ready to do it.  If there is
> anyone else out there interested in helping out, I am quite open to any
> suggestions and can put you to good use, if desired!  It’s going to require
> yet another round of funding, I’m afraid…
>
>
>
> Kevin further writes:
>
> Even if there is no excess heat, it still was the most promising lead
> -- there is actually an endothermic reaction that lets out radiation.   The
> fact you can throw H2 and Nickel atoms together and end up with a nuclear
> product would change EVERYTHING.
>
>
>
> I agree that this was the most promising lead so far and is the reason I
> have not lost sight of it (and won’t).  I see this signal (if real) as a
> precursor to excess heat, or a bifurcation that leads to no excess heat.
> We have the resources to understand it, if we can only replicate it.  We’ve
> taken a few shots at replication under different conditions using similar
> detection, without success.  Either the signal was an artefact, we need to
> improve the recipe leading up to the event or we need to build a better
> mouse trap.
>
>
>
> Mark Jurich
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Mark Jurich]

I wrote:
Yes, we (MFMP) did pursue the “Gamma Ray Thing” (we made an unsuccessful 
replication attempt, and I myself have not given up on it), and we cannot say 
there was excess heat, because the apparent excess heat   was less than the 
error of the crude calorimeter measurement…

… I am still trying to convince the group to take another crack at it, with 
a more sophisticated radiation measurement that requires some building and a 
small amount of funding.

Kevin writes:
That means you have not been pursuing it.   It's been 4 years and basically 
no mention on the MFMP blog.

I assume here that “you” means MFMP.  MFMP’s Bob Higgins is currently 
performing a series of automated experiments (at least 2 are completed) which 
utilize a NaI Detector (as well as other detectors), also looking for the 
“Gamma Ray Thing” (X-ray signal).  As far as I’m aware, nothing has shown up, 
so far.  Have you been following the experiments on LENR-Forum?  Each 
experiment not showing any signal, is interesting information.  We still don’t 
know if the signal could have been an artifact unless we reproduce it…

The Signal (or Gamma Ray Thing), occurred in February of 2016.  The replication 
attempt ended in late May, 2016.  The analysis ended about a month after that.  
It’s been about 12 months since then. During those 12 months, MFMP has spent 
time building Neutron Detectors, beefing up the experiment automation for the 
subsequent experiment (not a replication attempt but using the same NaI 
Detector setup) using the built-up equipment (reported on QuantumHeat.Org, but 
no signal seen), prepping for the Me356 & Ecco Tests and performing the Me356 
Test (amongst other things)…

… If “you” meant myself, I’ve been spending every bit of my available time in 
those 12 months, working on a follow-up experiment with a better shot at seeing 
the signal once again, if the group doesn’t see it. I suppose that there will 
come a time when the group realizes that this is the direction we should go in, 
and we all work towards that goal.  In the meantime,  I think it’s important 
for me to give MFMP the space/time it needs to pursue other directions it deems 
as fruitful, until we are all back on the same page.  If not, I am happy to 
continue towards the goal of increasing the success of seeing the signal when 
we are ready to do it.  If there is anyone else out there interested in helping 
out, I am quite open to any suggestions and can put you to good use, if 
desired!  It’s going to require yet another round of funding, I’m afraid…

Kevin further writes:
Even if there is no excess heat, it still was the most promising lead -- 
there is actually an endothermic reaction that lets out radiation.   The fact 
you can throw H2 and Nickel atoms together and end up with a nuclear product 
would change EVERYTHING.

I agree that this was the most promising lead so far and is the reason I have 
not lost sight of it (and won’t).  I see this signal (if real) as a precursor 
to excess heat, or a bifurcation that leads to no excess heat.  We have the 
resources to understand it, if we can only replicate it.  We’ve taken a few 
shots at replication under different conditions using similar detection, 
without success.  Either the signal was an artefact, we need to improve the 
recipe leading up to the event or we need to build a better mouse trap.

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed.
>

Yeah? Who the hell are you accusing of "spin, astroturfing and propaganda
produced by I.H." if not me? Who else? If you are not accusing me, you are
accusing other people who support I.H., which is just as bad. You have not
even READ THE EVIDENCE and yet you are sure that we are spinning
propaganda!

Whoever you are attacking with these false allegations, take it elsewhere.



> Both Rossi and IH descended into a war of words, IH more effectively that
> Rossi.
>

Bullshit. Rossi is a fraud who tried to steal $267 million from I.H. There
was no "war of words" because I.H. said practically nothing during the
entire lawsuit. Nothing! All they did was defend their interests.



> I hope that the gatekeepers and prominent actors in LENR will guard
> against any damage that IH is tempted to do to LENR in the same way that
> they did regarding Defkalion.
>

I.H. has done a lot of good supporting many researchers. The only person
who has hurt cold fusion in the last few years is Rossi. YOU can't judge
because you don't even have the guts to look at Rossi's own report which
proves he is a thief.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Daniel Rocha]

This is not how a socialist talks. This is all due capitalism, name calling
different times in the class struggle. These are all synonyms, made by
those who are afraid of seeking revolution.

2017-07-07 18:02 GMT-03:00 Che :

>
>
>  Neoliberal age of oligarchic plundering of our entire society.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

I don't remember writing a post that personally attacked Jed. If I did, let
anybody please repost it here. Jed does tend to get excessively emotional
and carried away. I would like to remember if I deserve such a lambasting.

Both Rossi and IH descended into a war of words, IH more effectively that
Rossi. What I expect going forward is Rossi surviving just like he did
after the Defkalion affair. IH will fail in LENR subsequent development in
the same way that Defkalion eventually failed. I hope that the gatekeepers
and prominent actors in LENR will guard against any damage that IH is
tempted to do to LENR in the same way that they did regarding Defkalion.
When the golden goose gets away, it is natural to want to still lay golden
eggs.



On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> As produced by IH, the spin, astroturfing and propaganda that LENR has
>> seen is just a foretaste of the effort that will be put forward by the
>> oil/gas/coal/wind/solar industries when LENR goes public.
>>
>
> Axil: You said that he has not read the Penon report. So you know nothing
> about Rossi's claims and you have no business discussing them or
> criticizing what I and others say. We know what Rossi claims, and you
> don't, so shut up.
>
> I expect opposition if cold fusion goes public, but there has been NO
> spin, astroturfing and propaganda from I.H. They had no need for that. They
> were not happy with what there was.
>
> I myself played a leading role in attacking Rossi at LENR Forum. If you
> accuse me of being opposed to cold fusion or being duped somehow to think
> there is problem with Rossi where no such problem exists, I say you are
> contemptible, you know nothing about me, and you have not contributed
> anything to this field compared to me.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

The last time a battle of this magnitude took place, it was the Wright
brothers and all the slimy weasels like Curtiss who were trying to steal
their IP.   It went on for a long time with no end in sight until the
guvmint stepped in for the sake of the war effort in Europe, so we could
make airplanes.   I don't see those dynamics in play any more, what with
the advent of nuclear weapons.  There hasn't been an existential war for
America since 1945, which ended coincidentally, with nuclear weapons.

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Yup, this is just the first battle in the patent wars.   It will last
>> decades until some billionaire steps in.
>>
>
> Oligarchic 'Capitalism' (parasitism) does not HAVE decades.
>
> But maybe none of the rest of us do, either.
>
>
>
>
>