Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper
Call me a moron, but without more context it is not obvious to me that this qualifies as an idiotic rejection letter. Harry On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The most idiotic rejection letter I have ever seen is here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg Ceratinly (sic) is! Dr. Lindley needs spell check! Ass. Editor my ass. T
Re: [Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.
Yeah it has happened to me with a few street lights, but I thought it was just some sort of subtle electrical/vibrational connection between my body and a light which was nearing the end of its life. However, one night about 20+ years ago, I found I was able to turn a particular light on and off repeatedly by walking towards and away from it each time. harry On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: Check the definition if you need to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phenomenon I am a SLIder myself. I can turn off some lights just by passing by foot or bicyce. I discovered this by chance. I don't affect the light in any directly conscious way. It just happens. I hope I can put it on video but the problem is it only works with some lamps far away from where I live now. Anyone with car in Stockholm could help. And please bring courageous and honest witnesses. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:First Manned Rocket
since this story mentions the hollow earth theory, I would like to say that I think the theory is a unconscious comment on galilean relativity (the central myth of modern physics) where the relativity motion is based on observations made inside windowless room. Harry On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, lorenhe...@aol.com wrote: Actually our common 'monkey' ancestors were test piloting rockets first. They were millions of years ahead of us. I guess the 'old saying that it's so easy a human can do it was true after all. Did the first manned rocket launch in 1961 carrying Yuri Gagarin? Or did it launch in 1933 carrying Otto Fischer? http://io9.com/5908728/did-the-germans-launch-a-crewed-rocket-into-space-in-1933 T /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 15 May 2012 21:33:02 -0400: Hi, [snip] Yeah it has happened to me with a few street lights, but I thought it was just some sort of subtle electrical/vibrational connection between my body and a light which was nearing the end of its life. However, one night about 20+ years ago, I found I was able to turn a particular light on and off repeatedly by walking towards and away from it each time. Perhaps it has to do with the fair weather current, or in this case field. By walking toward the lamp the top of your head brings the ground closer to the lamp (because your body is filled with salt water, which is a reasonable conductor), thus changing the static field. The resultant high voltage change may be enough to trigger the circuitry of the lamp, causing it to turn on. This may only happens with lamps where the normal ground connection (if they have one) is broken . BTW it may also be related to whether or not your footwear is (somewhat) conductive (e.g. wet). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Maybe. The hypothesis could be tested with a tall bladder filled with salt water sitting on remote controlled cart. Other curious phenomena such as water dowsing could be investigated with subitably constructed human analogues. harry
[Vo]:Dowsing research ignored
http://producer.glacieragweb.com/2003/05/water-witch-work-ignored/ Water witch work ignored Posted May. 8th, 2003 by Karen Morrison A university researcher is having trouble convincing his colleagues that water witching works. “They’re not willing to accept it. They say dowsing doesn’t exist,” said Vincent von Tscharner of the University of Calgary. In the three years since he completed his three-year study of dowsers, he has been unable to get his research peer-reviewed, a necessary step that precedes its publication in scientific journals. Von Tscharner said he made a strong case in a statistical analysis of nine different dowsers in blind and controlled experiments. Some were even placed inside enclosed trailers or blindfolded and pulled around sites, so they would not know where they were in a field, he said. Analysis using linear regression and computer simulations led to his conclusion that there had to be more than luck in the dowsers’ high success rate. A Swiss native educated in experimental physics, mathematics and biophysics, von Tscharner now works in the human performance lab at the university’s kinesiology faculty. He found a strong correlation between muscle activity in human subjects and geological fields below the ground. Convinced the dowsers are reacting to geological structures underground, he conceded it may not necessarily be water. He placed electrodes on the dowsers to gauge muscle activity. “When people walk into an active zone, you see a change in the muscle activity,” he said. “Active fields have an influence on the human body.” The experiments were repeated with dozens of non-dowsers, who also showed changes in muscle activity in active zones. Yet only dowsers seemed able to use that to advantage in finding the fields with their divining rods and tools. Yannis Pahatouroglou of the University of Saskatchewan’s physics department said further collaborative study is needed involving specialists in the fields of biology, physics and geology. “A joint effort rather than an individual one might be able to prove that,” he said. He said experiments would need meticulous measurements, untested sites and subjects sensitive to underground fixtures. That would need to be followed up with geological analysis and drilling to determine what is below ground. “Anyone can speculate, but for something to be accepted, you have to have experiments,” said Pahatouroglou. Von Tscharner said it will take time to convince classical physicists of his results. In the meantime, he continues to present his research at conferences in the hopes that one day his research will be published. He noted dowsers have long been used by farmers and well diggers to identify potential drilling sites. “The population doesn’t care what scientists say,” he said. “They use it because they know it works for them and if they didn’t work, they wouldn’t use it again.” harry
Re: [Vo]:Any SLIders out there? I am one.
I think lights that are near death are prone to being influenced by the presence of people. So yes the light might turn on and off when you aren't near it, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that you had some infleunce at other times. Harry On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Beaty, ... If you notice a *single* streelight turn off, it might just be Anthropic Principle. Meaning, that streetlight is slowly turning on and off constantly, but you only notice this when you're walking underneath, and then wrongly ascribe the cause as being your proximity. Human presence causes the bulb to be noticed, because without nearby human presence, the bulb isn't noticed. I had never heard of the term sliders, but based on the description given here I used to believe I had slider characteristics. I noticed that certain street lamps I passed, especially when I was driving in my car or walking past them at night would suddenly blink out. After several repeated encounters it seemed very obvious to me that my presence must have been responsible. However, what dissuaded me from a personal belief that I was the cause of the anomaly was the fact that I got curious and began to observe the same lamps more closely. After a more careful extended period of observations I noticed that the same street lamps which I thought my presence was somehow influencing were regularly turning off all on their own regardless of whether I was nearby or not. There was obviously something wrong with the streetlamp. I suspect they were overheating and something like an internal circuit breaker had been tripped. After they cooled down they would turn back on again. The curious anomaly had nothing to do with me. Grant me serenity over the street lamps I am unable to influence. The courage to influence the street lamps that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
personally i don't believe nature (or god) balances the books for every process. we only need CoE to hold for our measuring instruments. harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to overcome! Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
[Vo]:Scientific American Blog essay contest
Scientific American Blog http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/ Which of the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong? Announcing the fourth Foundational Questions Institute essay contest Harry
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
This link provides a nice concise summary of evolutionary thought from the Greeks to the victorian age. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml Darwin's account of evolution is over emphasized, but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Although the link says Lamarckian evolution has been discredited, there is some truth in Lamarck's account as work on epigenetics is revealing. Anyway, I think evolution is driven by many causes and Darwinian natural selection is just one of the causes. Harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I find your attempt to equate Darwin with Newton rather amusing. If there ever was a field of pseudoscience, that is beholden to and extremely malleable to political pressure; it is the field that Darwin created with his swiss-cheese theory. While Newton created whole fields of legitimate science, Darwin and his science of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution is a quintessential example of how a legiitimate field of study has been turned into a mockery of political conformance. My beef is not with Darwin, but with how people turned the science of Darwin into a religion of humanism. Whenever someone proposes a theory, many times they come up with a proposition on how to falsily their theory. Well, Darwin came up with how to falsify his theory of Darwinian Evolution. Here is what he said about his theory and how to falsify it. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. And that organ you're using to read this post is another. There must be dozens, even hundreds of organs, processes, systems in your body that could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. By this criteria, Darwinian Evolution is FALSIFIED, and yet, anyone who questions Darwinian Evolution is automatically involved with pseudo-science and is labelled a pseudoscientist. Just as Cold Fusion is automatically labeled a pseudoscience. So my point is: If you are wondering why people like Huzienga, Parks, Zimmerman oppose Cold Fusion out of hand, just remember that if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, there is a Huzienga, Parks and Zimmerman in you. (I'll be docking away from your shots now.) Jojo I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think fallicies render a theory fatally flawed. A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150 years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement. Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math replaces intuition in the art of theory making. harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I would think the idea that one can take land to support a mate is agricultural notion of identity and integrity. Harry On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of Yeoman is at issue. Its modern degeneration has virtually nothing to do with the original notion. Basically there was, once upon a time, recognition of the foundation of civilization -- primarily because civilization had only recently arisen. This is particularly true of northern Europeans who remained, very deliberately, uncivil until late JudeoChristianization. Part of the resistance to civilization is that young lovers cannot nest simply by virtue of the young man forcefully challenging a noble owner of some land and taking land necessary to support a mate and their children together without paying fees. The answer arrived at by wiser men than today's monied class -- men who were involved in building civilization from the ground up rather than coming in and simply taking credit -- was a recognition of homesteads as inviolable. Indeed, this is the origin of the Norse concept of the allodium -- the basis of allodial, as opposed to feudal, law. This all gets back to individual integrity: When a young man is broken by civilization in order to provide for and protect the formation of his family, more is broken than a mere uncivil spirit. In a very real sense, he is alienated from himself -- he is incapable of what you call conviction except in the travesties visited upon his mind by government and religion. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: ___ Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. James, I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. He was driven by his convictions. The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) See Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley spoiled it most of the time. See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of Oracle/Ellison. An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. Add some power plus bullshit theses. Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. Leisure primarily is just that: leisure. It is the interests of the moneyed class of its time, which directs society at large, and its talents in particular. It depends on the societal value system, what to do with it, especially, what those people, having it, think merits them some additional status within their tribe. See eg Bourdieu 'La Distinction' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction Maybe I sound too much like a class warrior for Your taste. I'm not. I am just disgusted by the preferences of our contemporary 'leaders'. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what You are trying to say. Plus: I digress. This is probably utterly uninteresting to the vortex-crowd. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I would think the idea that one can take land to support a mate is agricultural notion of identity and integrity. Is sexual notion of identity and integrity. You know nothing of animal behavior. I know that some mates are impossible to please. ;-) harry
[Vo]:Capsule Declared 'Mission Ready' for Record Freefall Attempt
Capsule Declared 'Mission Ready' for Record Freefall Attempt March 8, 2012 – The capsule that will bring Austrian pilot Felix Baumgartner to the edge of space for his attempt to set a new world record free fall is mission ready, according to the Red Bull Stratos science team. A stratospheric balloon will lift the capsule to more than 120,000 feet; then Baumgartner will jump out in an attempt to break four records held by Joe Kittinger and set more that 50 years ago. A spokesperson from Red Bull said the team hopes to achieve the 120,000-foot attempt this summer. On August 16, 1960, Col. Joe Kittinger of the United States Air Force set the longstanding highest ascent record, riding a balloon to 102,800 feet during the historic Excelsior III project, then leapt out and made the highest skydive on record. Baumgartner also hopes to become the first person to break the speed of sound without the protection of an aircraft, and set a record for the longest freefall (estimated at 5 minutes, 30 seconds) ... http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-08_capsule.asp Harry
Re: [Vo]: brand new twisted conspiracy theory
In my brand of agnosticism you can't even assign a probability as he does. Harry On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: Nothing shocks me since Richard Dawkins admitted he was agnostic: Oh come now. He has been saying that for years. The same words are in his book. This reporter should check her facts. I admit I haven't read his book. I read all of his good friend's books, Douglas Adams'. At least Dawkins is not a militant agnostic: I don't know and NEITHER DO YOU!! T
[Vo]:Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks
Every now and then a bold idea comes along which may (or will) significantly change our view of Earth's natural history... Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks: Evidences from Microchemical Analysis, Neutron Emission, and Geological Transformation http://vimeo.com/41901023 (from the 'Atom Unexplored' conference) harry
Re: [Vo]:re the alternative history of LENR
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Just dozed off. While in that state I heard a wee voice utter Off with their heads! in French and a louder shout in english with a Shakesperian accent Kill all the lawyers!. What a nightmare! I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html T In that regard the crime of treason should be eliminated. It only serves to aggrandize the state. harry
[Vo]:The Solowheel
Will the Solowheel supplant the Segway? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjd5ZQq9aQfeature=related Harry
Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision
Planck's law desrcibes radiation from a blackbody, and what is a blackbody? Well it is a manufactured entity, a physical model and models don't necessarily correspond with the rest of reality. Come to think of it all natural law may simply be based on contrived models of reality. If we become seduced by our models, we will unconsciously design experiments (build models) which validate a physical law to nth decimal place and learn nothing new. harry On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: If you want to find the best argument for nonlinearity in inverse power laws, such as when geometry changes fairly unexpectedly (into a paradigm shift), look no further than Planck’s Law (or Theory), which is/was a proven predictor of the relationship between frequency and emitted spectral energy for blackbody radiation. Max Planck, even 100 years ago suspected that his theory was breaking down the smaller he went, but this was not easy to prove, and the later geniuses who taught physics at University ignored his doubts and cast the whole thing into a “law” since they did not want to teach “theory”, and since it worked well enough. More recently, verification of the non-linearity in the power law basis behind Planck has finally been reported at MIT, but Wiki still calls it Planck’s Law instead of Max’s kludge. http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html Planck’s law can be written in about a dozen different ways, with many different variables, and has changed over time to “fix” problems, and is considered an inverse fourth (or fifth for wavelength) power law down to the dimensions that he was familiar with 100 years ago. We already know that at nanometer geometry and ultraviolet wavelengths - it begins to fail, and eventually is off by three orders of magnitude at the level of quantum dots.
Re: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774?
Maybe it was due to a terrestial LENR event belched up by volcano. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree with you Terry that it could likely be some form of solar event. Maybe you should check the historical sun spot record if available for that time frame to get some form of correlation. It also makes one wonder if similar, ever more powerful, events in history have resulted in a driving mechanism for evolution. The poor creatures around during such an occasion would not even know what hit them! If this type of event happens frequently in the history of life on earth one would expect DNA to have a built in mechanism to correct for a moderate radiation burst. I do recall reading about repeated sequences within our DNA and these bursts might indicate a good reason for that to be true. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 8:37 am Subject: [Vo]:What Happened in CE 774? http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-radiation-burst-recorded-in-tree-rings-1.10768 Just over 1,200 years ago, the planet was hit by an extremely intense burst of high-energy radiation of unknown cause, scientists studying tree-ring data have found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11123.html Is it possible that our sun generated an unprecedented energy burst? T
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
I'd be interested to know if anyone was able to see the transit with a crude pinhole camera. I tried but the clouds would not co-operate. harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: welcome. Please do share if you find a better stream. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
Based on evidence, the neutron is believed to be comprised of positive core surrounded by a negative shell: http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/news13.htm However in recent years there is evidence which suggests the neutron is comprised of three layers: a central negative core which is surrounded by a layer of positive charge which in turn is surrounded by an exterior negative shell. Harry On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess one could look at a neutron as being similar to a proton plus an electron but I am not sure that the exact analogy holds up under scrutiny. For one thing, when a neutron decays you get more out of it than the electron and proton. There is a pesky antineutrino and a substantial amount of energy released. The kinetic energy of a mass is equal to Mass * Velocity * Velocity /2. If you set the energy of an electron and a proton to be equal and solve for the velocity ratio you obtain the inverse square root of the mass ratio. I am neglecting relativistic effects since we are speaking of moderate velocities. You could get a fairly close idea of the proton velocity with temperature as you suggest by comparing it to a neutron, but I think the solution to the math above would be easier. One interesting point to consider is the strange energy behavior of a proton and electron combination. If they are in free space they find each other and radiate a significant amount of energy until the ground energy state is obtained. Even though the two are beginning to look like a neutron, energy is released into space. The hydrino hypothesis suggests that a lot more energy can be obtained by allowing the electron to move closer to the proton. If we continue in this manner, why does energy not be released the closer you bring the two components together? And to make manners worse, the neutron has more mass by a significant margin as compared to these two major constituents. Perhaps a neutron is much more complex than it appears. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 3:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) To get a idea about the speed of the proton, it might be possible to make a comparison with the speed of the neutron at various temperature. This might be OK because the proton and the neutron are about the same size and weight. The neutron is just a proton and an electron together…Right! 2000K – hot - 7060 meters/second 330K – room temperature- 2870 M/S 20K – Real cold - 706 M/S On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Robin, I would think the velocity of the proton of the same energy as compared to an electron would be the square root of 2000 or 45 times slower due to the velocity squared relationship. Now, if the proton slows down much faster than the electron then the deceleration would be a lot greater. Perhaps 10 times greater? If you factor this into account then the radiation levels of the two particles are relatively close. What do you think? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:12:10 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I have long wondered whether or not protons generate bremsstrahlung radiation in the same manner as electrons. It seems that the charge is responsible for the radiation and not the mass unless you are suggesting that the slower rate of deceleration of a proton versus and electron as it travels through matter is the reason. Precisely. Furthermore the actual velocity of a proton is about 2000 times lower than that of an electron of the same energy (relativistic considerations aside). Would the same deceleration rate for either particle generate the same radiation effect? I suspect so. The flip side of this coin is that the proton would travel proportionally further as a result of the lower deceleration rate. Actually, I don't think they travel as far. I suspect this is because they are much slower, and consequently have more time to interact with the electrons of the atoms they pass through than an electron of equivalent energy. Alpha particles have even shorter trajectories. Besides, the positively charged particles tend to attract the electrons of other atoms, dragging them away from their parent atoms, whereas a fast electron pushes other electrons away, making them more inclined to simply move over a little rather then get stripped from their parent atom. This means that fast electrons don't get as many opportunities to dispose of their energy and hence travel farther. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR)
This experiment is designed to see if neutrons can decay without emitting neutrinos. http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13520 If neutrons can that would conflict with the standard model. harry On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone accept the quark model for the neutron? I find it hard to reconcile anything of that nature with a three layer model. I would think that by now with all of the super accelerators that this would be well defined. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) Based on evidence, the neutron is believed to be comprised of positive core surrounded by a negative shell: http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/news13.htm However in recent years there is evidence which suggests the neutron is comprised of three layers: a central negative core which is surrounded by a layer of positive charge which in turn is surrounded by an exterior negative shell. Harry On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess one could look at a neutron as being similar to a proton plus an electron but I am not sure that the exact analogy holds up under scrutiny. For one thing, when a neutron decays you get more out of it than the electron and proton. There is a pesky antineutrino and a substantial amount of energy released. The kinetic energy of a mass is equal to Mass * Velocity * Velocity /2. If you set the energy of an electron and a proton to be equal and solve for the velocity ratio you obtain the inverse square root of the mass ratio. I am neglecting relativistic effects since we are speaking of moderate velocities. You could get a fairly close idea of the proton velocity with temperature as you suggest by comparing it to a neutron, but I think the solution to the math above would be easier. One interesting point to consider is the strange energy behavior of a proton and electron combination. If they are in free space they find each other and radiate a significant amount of energy until the ground energy state is obtained. Even though the two are beginning to look like a neutron, energy is released into space. The hydrino hypothesis suggests that a lot more energy can be obtained by allowing the electron to move closer to the proton. If we continue in this manner, why does energy not be released the closer you bring the two components together? And to make manners worse, the neutron has more mass by a significant margin as compared to these two major constituents. Perhaps a neutron is much more complex than it appears. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 3:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) To get a idea about the speed of the proton, it might be possible to make a comparison with the speed of the neutron at various temperature. This might be OK because the proton and the neutron are about the same size and weight. The neutron is just a proton and an electron together…Right! 2000K – hot - 7060 meters/second 330K – room temperature- 2870 M/S 20K – Real cold - 706 M/S On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Robin, I would think the velocity of the proton of the same energy as compared to an electron would be the square root of 2000 or 45 times slower due to the velocity squared relationship. Now, if the proton slows down much faster than the electron then the deceleration would be a lot greater. Perhaps 10 times greater? If you factor this into account then the radiation levels of the two particles are relatively close. What do you think? Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 1:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:12:10 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I have long wondered whether or not protons generate bremsstrahlung radiation in the same manner as electrons. It seems that the charge is responsible for the radiation and not the mass unless you are suggesting that the slower rate of deceleration of a proton versus and electron as it travels through matter is the reason. Precisely. Furthermore the actual velocity of a proton is about 2000 times lower than that of an electron of the same energy (relativistic considerations aside). Would the same deceleration rate for either particle generate the same radiation effect? I suspect so. The flip side of this coin is that the proton would travel proportionally further as a result of the lower deceleration rate. Actually, I don't think they travel as far. I suspect this is because
Re: [Vo]:Transit of Venus - Live Stream
I didn't think it would be enough, but a story on da web said it was a safe way to observe the transit. harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Robert robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I used a pair of binoculars to project the image of the transit on to a dark surface. With a bit of eyepiece-focusing, the transit was quite clear. I think that the Venus blemish may be too small to be coherent with a simple pinhole. Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be interested to know if anyone was able to see the transit with a crude pinhole camera. I tried but the clouds would not co-operate. harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: welcome. Please do share if you find a better stream. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: thanks. Harry On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: Best stream i found so far. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge Enjoy. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. A mechanical analog - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m hill - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily Nice analogy. I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges cannot be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. I do like Storms's approach. I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can focus incident fields many thousands of times. The fields must be focused millions of times according to Ed. The tracks keep the train of cars rigid otherwise a small bump would make the lead car veer off course. So either you need tracks or a smooth terrain. harry
Re: [Vo]:Another strange effect
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Guenter Wildgruber's message of Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:04:57 +0100 (BST): Hi, [snip] Piezoelectric effects could also create EM radiation that might affect the electronics of the detectors. The two kinds of dectors work differently, so it reduces the likely hood that the data were just artifacts. One criticism leveled against the bubble detector was that the signature bubbles were produced by sound/vibrations at the moment of fracture rather than neutrons. However, in my opinion this is *very* unlikely because not every sample that was fractured produced bubbles, only ones of certain chemical composition. Also the He3 detected neutrons in the same test samples as the bubble dector. Then there is also the evidence of a change in chemical composition at the fracture surfaces. harry Harry is making the rounds: Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks ( A. Carpinteri • G. Lacidogna • A. Manuello • O. Borla) http://theatomunexplored.com/wp-content/docs/Carpinteri_Rock_Mech_Eng.pdf ... Abstract: Neutron emission measurements, by means of He3 devices and bubble detectors, were performed during three different kinds of compression tests on brittle rocks: (1) under monotonic displacement control, (2) under cyclic loading, and (3) by ultrasonic vibration. ... It is also interesting to emphasize that the anomalous chemical balances of the major events that have affected the geomechanical and geochemical evolution of the Earth’s crust should be considered as an indirect evidence of the piezonuclear fission reactions considered above. ... Conclusions: Neutron emission measurements were performed on Luserna Stone specimens during mechanical tests. From these experiments, it can be clearly seen that piezonuclear reactions giving rise to neutron emissions are possible in inert non-radioactive solids under loading. In particular, during compression tests of specimens with sufficiently large size, THE NEUTRON FLUX WAS FOUND TO BE OF ABOUT ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN THE BACKGROUND LEVEL AT THE TIME OF CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. ... This is from a peer reviewed Springer Journal by some respected scientists. Now what does that mean, besides making your head spin? That, under certain natural conditions something like cold fusion occurs. Which is especially interesting for countries exposed to earthquakes like Italy or Japan. ( which are, in an epistemic sense, --please allow me this departure-- exposed to environmental irregularities, and not like us Germans which constructed a crystallized regular society and having very begnign environment like autobahns and moderate climate. Nothing unexpected happening here, Except: some explosions every 100yrs. But this is another story) One of the riddles is -and here we are again at the ominous 'reliability' issue, that there are some diffuse prewarnings, detected by organisms, which is considered quack science by most, because, well, it is so unreliable. As to be expected, the publication is received with utter suspicion, although the methodology, as far as I can see, is far above standard. As Abd Ul and others have claimed, extraordinary findings do NOT require extraordinary proof. An experimental finding, produced with state of the art methodology, is just that: a finding! The burden of proof is on the other side! Theoreticians nowadays seem to be utterly detached from the material conditions of experimentation. Instruments nowadays are so sophisticated that often they need their own theory of operation. Theoreticians overwhelmingly refuse that fact, that they are involved in this! The objections could be a) ad hominems ( sometimes justified, see rossi) b) questioning the methodology (see above) c) questioning the basics (ask the theoreticians WRT their axioms ) where (c) is the most interesting one. Actually this paper is eventually en par with Alfred Wegeners continental drift hypothesis, in that it questions the origin of the composition of the earth crust, which is, by conventional thinking the sole result of supernova explosions, which produced a certain composition of heavy elements in the planets (the stardust hypothesis, so to say) This is no easy matter, so to say. Guenther Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Criticism of piezonuclear experiments
If you read between the lines, they are accusing Cardone and Carpinteri of either incompetency or fraud. harry On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Remarks on Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863
Re: [Vo]:Criticism of piezonuclear experiments
Carpinteri responds to some of hic critics on Passerini's Blog (google provides a pretty good translation) http://22passi.blogspot.ca/2012/06/risposta-del-prof-carpinteri-gerardo.html Here Passerini catalogues and examines more of the virtrol and criticism levelled against piezonucleare. http://22passi.blogspot.ca/2012/06/dal-processo-sommario-frutto-di_12.html (I like Passerini's expression che energia dalle pietre which google translates as energy from the stones) harry On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If you read between the lines, they are accusing Cardone and Carpinteri of either incompetency or fraud. harry On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Remarks on Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863
[Vo]:Missing Neutrons
Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons
What drives such theory making is the need to uphold CoE. Harry On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons
The mystery of the eternal is now nothing more than CoE. Harry On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Good find - and the implications are a bit convoluted. The curious thing is that mirror matter neutrons (or deep hydrinos) will explain anomalous heat loss quite nicely. As you may remember, Ahern reported that some of his Arata-style samples demonstrated anomalous heat LOSS (more of the samples show gain than loss, and only a few showed nothing). This paper, in fact - could explain anomalous heat loss better than anything I have seen thus far. BTW the all of the nanopowder samples which showed thermal loss were made of nano-titanium embedded in zirconia. All of the nickel and palladium samples showed gain. Jones -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder What drives such theory making is the need to uphold CoE. Harry Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally. The existence of such mirror matter had been suggested in various scientific contexts some time ago, including the search for suitable dark matter candidates. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
Since the subject has arisen, it is worth mentioning that the spontaneous generation of matter happens in steady-state cosmological theories propounded by Fred Hoyle and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory Harry On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 1. If a neutron can disappear into the vacuum, then: 1a. Can a neutron pop INTO this space (spontaneous formation)? Let me just say this. There have been for a long time - reports of spontaneous (anomalous) hydrogen showing up in extreme vacuum conditions. Hydrogen from nowhere, essentially. But that phenomenon, if true, has morphed into fringe religious bogosity so one hesitates to even mention it. There was an article in IE and it has been picked up here, for what it is worth: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/06/hydrogen_from_space_the_aether.html This is not the same as neutrons from nowhere, except that the neutron has only a short half-life, and you expect to see hydrogen in the end. Does that account for the hydrogen phenomenon, and if so, where is the decay energy? Does trans-dimensional transfer happen isothermally, regardless? (at least from the perspective of the host) That would be the only way it could happen. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
I think physical principles should be treated like fine clothes. Keep them but don't wear them all the time. Harry On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Let us not throw away the CoE too fast. I suggest that an solution will one day appear that does not do this. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 9:15 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos) 1. If a neutron can disappear into the vacuum, then: 1a. Can a neutron pop INTO this space (spontaneous formation)? 2. For every neutron that exits, does another enter this space (to balance things, remember CoE!)? 3. If either #1 or #1a are possible, and not #2, then CoE gets tossed out the window! Altho, for all practical purposes, CoE would still appear to be intact, BUT, if we can optimize the popping out of existence within some object, and it happens often enough, then it would be possible to violate CoE within that object. Jones just opened a can of worms... and the feast begins! :-) -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos) -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com They don't need to disappear into reciprocal space. This isn't about need Robin - it is about explaining results. Most of the time, of course, this kind of cooling reaction simply does not happen. Do you know of any other reports of anomalous cooling? Hydrino molecules can quite easily disappear into ordinary space. They can simply migrate through the atomic interstices of the container wall into the atmosphere. Yes, of course ... at least if they are real - then that is probably true. But in that case there is only excess heat - not anomalous cooling. IOW, that will not explain a cooling effect, as you acknowledge, so why mention it? The Ahern results are beyond any possible chemical effect. The purpose of the posting was to present a possible rationale involving a new kind of fractional hydrogen reaction, where the assumptions are very different. Net cooling instead of heating. The common denominator seems to be simple - if neutrons can do this disappearing act, then virtual neutrons (maximum redundancy hydrogen) can possibly do the same. In neither case am I claiming it is anything more than a remote possibility. When I opined that there could be some kind of momentum effect what I meant was that in certain circumstances the entire sequence from atomic hydrogen to virtual neutron happens as one unstoppable progression, unlike the Mills' hydrino - which is a sequential chain of reactions which occurs in up to 137 steps. After all, this thread is merely the start of a new hypothesis, at this time - with which to explain new phenomena which previously was beyond explanation. Maybe it will not survive more accurate objections, but one cannot disqualify it easily by suggesting that another unproved presumption (Mills hydrinos operating in only one way) makes it not possible ☺ simply because Mills himself may have overlooked another feature of a broader phenomena. Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That's life. People are what they are. It isn't as if we have a better class of primates waiting in wings, prepared to take over the world and correct the problems caused by our nature. I hope not, anyway. I have not seen Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Movies like that frighten me. I can barely watch the trailer. It looks pretty good. They want man's red flower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTM ;-) harry
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
The apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe is also conundrum from the standpoint of CoE. harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility rather than a necessity. Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is easy to go over the top with dramatization on this one. This scenario does not need to involve parallel universes (in the SciFi sense) nor anything theological. In fact, Dirac's reciprocal space works fine - as the repository for deep hydrinos, and with no other fictional baggage so to speak. It is related to theology (or at least quasi-theology) since most physicists have faith in CoE. If they didn't they wouldn't bother to imagine neutrinos and parrallel universes. Harry BTW - for those who do not grasp what actually happened in the EPRI reports, here is a short synopsis of Ahern's experiments. First, there is a well insulated reactor with numerous RTDs for accurate temperature measurement. The reactor is filled with pressurized hydrogen and various sample nanopowders - including an inert control powder. There is a resistance heater, drawing in the tens of watts. The current is kept absolutely constant to the heater, so that there is no variation on P-in during the run. With the 'control', you will find from datalogging that a specific rate of thermal transfer occurs between the outer RTD, where the heater is located and the inner. Hydrogen under pressure is a good conductor of heat so this is normally only a few degrees. For example, in the control setup (no active powder) one might see 350C on the outside and 340C on the inside. The difference is minimal and never varies. OK - when one switches from the control to active nanopowder, things get interesting and if there is excess energy from the interaction of hydrogen with the powder, there will be an inversion, so that the inner RTD becomes hotter - often much hotter than the outer. That happens with nano-nickel, and the resulting temperature can be close to 100 degrees inverted. This is NOT calorimetry, but there are implications to be firmed up on further experimentation. The interesting part (for this thread) is that with Titanium nanopowder, instead of a temperature inversion indicating gain, you get an anomalous sink. For instance, instead of an expected 10 degree drop (out-to-in) the spread can be much higher, an order of magnitude perhaps, indicating active cooling. Any round numbers above are for illustration purposes only; but the results are shocking and significant in both anomalies - heat and cooling. And guess what, the cooling anomaly could be almost as important as the heating, in terms of new physics. EVEN IF THERE IS NO PATH TO COMERCIALIZATION - for an active cooling anomaly, it could be important if it points the way to an accurate understanding of the heat. That is where this is going. I haven’t heard a better explanation for active nano-cooling than the disappearance of matter from one spatial dimension into reciprocal space. This space may not be a true dimension, but a fractal instead. Fractal is being used in the original way to mean a fractional dimension. Plus, the matter which is lost may not be a neutron, per se, but instead a maximum-redundant hydrino. Essentially, what I think happens with nano-titanium cooling is that the nanoparticles - which are a strong Mills' catalyst - collapse to the full redundancy in one continuous step - where there is both heat release on shrinkage, followed immediately by massive heat loss. on the atomic level, when the hydrino essentially disappears into reciprocal space. The net result is active cooling. Why it only happens with titanium needs to be answered. Perhaps it is a momentum effect of some kind. E=mc^2 works both ways, apparently - and when mass disappears - in a dimensional sense, so does the corresponding energy it contained. This is seen as heat removal from a hot reactor. The active species does not have to be 'mirror matter' as in the original article - but if that helps in appreciating the view through Alice's 'looking glass' - good! ... it is kind of catchy, so let's keep it. Jones -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder The mystery of the eternal is now nothing more than CoE. Good find - and the implications are a bit convoluted. The curious thing is that mirror matter neutrons (or deep hydrinos) will explain anomalous heat loss quite nicely. As you may remember, Ahern reported that some of his Arata-style samples demonstrated anomalous heat LOSS (more of the samples show gain than loss, and only a few showed nothing). This paper, in fact - could explain anomalous heat loss better than anything I have seen thus far. BTW the all of the nanopowder samples which showed thermal loss were made of nano-titanium embedded in zirconia. All of the nickel and palladium samples showed gain. Jones Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? In a paper recently published in EPJ C¹, researchers hypothesised the existence of mirror particles to explain the anomalous loss of neutrons observed experimentally
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
ha! Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy) On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote: What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
I don't think concept of entanglement is required. Here is what I mean by complete. An entity is complete when its presence *can* be detected (not that it must detected). Unlike other particles Neutrinos do not scatter, as far I know. A particle which can be scattered can be detected without destruction, so it is complete without destruction. If Neutrinos are more than just mathematical fictions, but cannot be scattered, then they remain incomplete until they are detroyed during an interaction. Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the decay? The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time. Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus? Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete until they interact. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility rather than a necessity. Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis
Even if you are caged like zoo animal, or work in labour camp or struggle to make ends meet, everyday you will have the free will to acquiesce. Harry On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It sounds like you should author a new book titled 'The Matrix'(joking of course). I hope that we are of free will and have at least a small say as to how our lives are to proceed. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 9:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Transcension Hypothesis These theories are all well and good; but, there are much greater possibilities regarding the evolution of sentience. If you are unfamiliar with Childhood's End, I would highly recommend a reading. There are many who believe the hive mind is more of the rule than the exception. It certainly appears to be the case in nature. The flight of birds such as in the beginning of Take Shelter or this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH-groCeKbE implies an innate extrasensory form of communication. In Childhood's End, it takes the tranquility created by the Overlords for the mankind hatchling; but, in other scifi, the mind merge is created by such as the internet. One could certainly expect that when our wet ware links are installed as predicted by Gibson in Neuromancer. Indeed, Whitley Streiber (et. al. - no pun intended) has conjectured that the hive-minded little abductors who walk in lockstep while probing his nether regions are actually time travelling humans who have returned to the past in hopes of retrieving those genes which allowed individual thought. Maybe we are the exception using EM waves to communicate. Maybe most nascent sentience uses quantum entanglement for communication. Indeed we are living in a fairly old universe. Maybe we are just pets or a zoo for more mature species. It goes on. I won't. T
[Vo]:OT:The aging brain: Why getting older just might be awesome
The prevailing wisdom is that creative endeavors are good for helping to slow the decline of our mental capabilities. But what if, in fact, the aging brain is more capable than its younger counterpart at creativity and innovation? It's a compelling proposition in our society, where more and more seniors are looking for jobs and going back to work (the number of working seniors has more than doubled since 1990, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics); where ageism is rampant in many areas (particularly hiring); and where innovation is, for the most part, considered a young person's domain. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/health/enayati-aging-brain-innovation/index.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Off topic, if you get depressed
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Watch Diane about 20 times and you will feel better. http://dianerenay.com/Diane'sVideos.html No kidding Frank hehe this is swell too... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKlnXzE-Dk harry
Re: [Vo]:Mills : Solid State eCat ?
You would need control version that has same dimensions and electrical inputs as the Ecat, but which lacks a nuclear active environment (NAE). harry On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: How would one measure COP in a Solid State e-cat? On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The New Solid State E-Cat http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ When first introduced to the world, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat required a flow of water to remain stable, even at low temperatures. Now, he has developed a new solid state high temperature model that is stable at temperatures even higher than 600C -- with no cooling needed! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Mills : Solid State eCat ?
Load one ecat unit with hydrogen and leave an identical ecat unit unloaded and compare the temperature difference after electricity is applied. harry On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: You would need control version that has same dimensions and electrical inputs as the Ecat, but which lacks a nuclear active environment (NAE). harry On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: How would one measure COP in a Solid State e-cat? On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The New Solid State E-Cat http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ When first introduced to the world, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat required a flow of water to remain stable, even at low temperatures. Now, he has developed a new solid state high temperature model that is stable at temperatures even higher than 600C -- with no cooling needed! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Big ice crystals and curved ice rods around volcano in Antarctica
Nice pictures. A breeze might cause water to form curving icicles as it freezes. harry On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi How can ice crystals grow to ths big size? Image is from around the volcano Mount Erebus at Antarctica http://lh5.ggpht.com/-EVQxlm4Fp1w/TB6EkSJ9NmI/Bw4/MOncMvTzN0Y/2009-12-3011.JPG?imgmax=800 More images of big crystals can be seen here http://erebus.nmt.edu/index.php/icecaves I also want an explanation to how ice rods can be curved as can be seen on several pictures http://lh3.ggpht.com/-2Bw7mgY461o/TB6EhYunyXI/Bws/QWXUvOFL3vg/2009-12-31103548.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-XR5B_UJY8Ts/TB6EdzjddaI/BwQ/MhSMX9ETNfg/2009-12-31101131.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-HvrH_hFFn1E/TB6EeWS3ZII/BwU/XLtFGnKQMBg/2009-12-31101441.JPG?imgmax=800 I have never sen this in Sweden. Please explain the processes involved in determining crystal size. Hälsningar David
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
I haven't read the report myself, but I learned from a facebook group that it contains a recommendation by some contributing professionals for research into LENR which is not the same as an official recommendation by the commission. harry On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: The European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding research in LENR. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?
CF and Orientation .
Hi, This is my first post. I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess heat produced. Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun. This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity (rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF cells. Harry Veeder
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 11/28/04 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:11 PM 11/27/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Hi, This is my first post. I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess heat produced. Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun. This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity (rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF cells. Harry Veeder I don't know of any gravitational effects related to actual CF. However, Mitchell Schwartz, who posts here sometimes and is publiher of COLD FUSION TIMES, has published on the existence of *calorimetry anomalies* relating to gravity. Issues related to convection and stratification are important to the design of reliable calorimeters. Improperly designed calorimeters can give false data regarding CF. Calorimetry is vitally important to the study of CF because the heat signature of CF does not appear concurrent with the high energy particle emissions characteristic of hot fusion. Regards, Horace Heffner Thanks, but please don't get me wrong. I am not insinuating that gravity is generating misleading calorimetric measurements. Rather I am suggesting gravity plays a significant role in the creation of excess heat, even though the leading theories of gravity imply it can be ignored. Harry
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 11/28/04 6:44 AM, Steven Krivit at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry, Welcome to Vortex. Dennis Letts has performed some experimentation with magnets, at a certain orientation, surrounding a cf cell. Perhaps others have as well. Steve Thank you for the welcome. My question concerns the orientation of a CF cell and its parts relative to to the direction of gravity (i.e. relative to a level surface). BTW, are lists members aware of the experimental and theoretical work of Peter Fred? He maintains there is a relationship between gravity and the flow of heat. If you would like more more information, please see Peter Fred's website www.thermal-force.com/Copper.htm Harry Veeder
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 11/28/04 8:25 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2:21 PM 11/28/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Thanks, but please don't get me wrong. I am not insinuating that gravity is generating misleading calorimetric measurements. Yes, understood, but I am asserting that there in fact is good evidence gravity does play a role if calorimeters are not properly designed. Rather I am suggesting gravity plays a significant role in the creation of excess heat, even though the leading theories of gravity imply it can be ignored. Do you have any experimental or theoretical evidence to support that? None. I have a hunch which I wanted to share with the list. Harry
Re: off topic..mad about software registration..........
Robin Hood, Why can't somebody do something about making newer software more compatible with older platforms. I don't want to hear it is impossible. Skippy on 11/29/04 4:55 PM, leaking pen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: damn skippy. btw, i should like to add that i rarely pirate myself, and never a small company. i find out about someone i know doing so, pirating a small comp or a personal programmer, well, they never will trace that trojan to the file i sent them. theres not enough left. On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Software designers should form trade unions. Actually 'designers' of all stripes should as well. The market is super-saturated with exploited designers. Design IS a trade. Like plumbers, designers have butt cracks too, they just aren't visible. ;-) Harry
Re: Haselhurst website
All human beings are sexual creatures and there are few, if any, for whom the whole area of sexuality and relationships is not of interest and concern. (Peter Vardy) Analyse any human emotion, no matter how far it may be removed from the sphere of sex, and you are sure to discover somewhere the primal impulse, to which life owes its perpetuation. The primitive stages can always be re-established; the primitive mind is, in the fullest meaning of the word, imperishable. (Sigmund Freud, 1915) If insemination were the sole biological function of sex, it could be achieved far more economically in a few seconds of mounting and insertion. Indeed, the least social of mammals mate with scarcely more ceremony. The species that have evolved long-term bonds are also, by and large, the ones that rely on elaborate courtship rituals. . . . Love and sex do indeed go together. (Edward O. Wilson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1978). On Human Nature) I think the orgasm has its origins in asexual reproduction. Harry
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
Are they saying the energy required to evaporate the water solution over a certain period time exceeds the electrical input energy over the same period time + the all the energy consumed by all the other processes in the same period of time? Harry on 12/1/04 9:02 PM, Mike Carrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed wrote: Here is an ICCF11 paper describing an Ohomori-Mizuno replication: Cirillo, D. and V. Iorio. Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France. Quote: Once a stable plasma has been achieved for more than 500 sec., we can compare the input energy, electrical power, with the quantity of energy necessary to warm up and evaporate the solution water. Omitted from this calculation is energy associated with chemical reactions; energy related to the heating-up and fusion of the tungsten; energy used in expanding gas and steam leaving the cell; energy lost by thermal and electromagnetic radiation; and loss of heat through the insulation. Even though this extra energy is omitted from the calculation, the cell is found to produce more energy than is being applied. That is astounding. Quite a robust result! - MC: This is a very important paper, and should be studied *very* carefully. 1) Light water is used; 2) Potassium carbonate is the electrolyte; 3) Plasma is produced in a confined space; 4) Erosion of the tungsten cathode is observed; 5) Transmutation occurs and 6) Macroscopic excess heat is produced. Many on vortex studiously ignore the work of Mills and BlackLight Power, or try to demonstrated that Mills' results are really LENR and vice versa. I have maintained that they should be studies separately, although they may be connected at a deeper level. Postassium carbonate will be ionized uder the cell conditions, releasing K+ ions. There will also be H atoms in the plasma, and these can and do react to produce very exothermic reactions in which H atoms are reduced to a lower orbital state. Thus there is no mystery to production of excess heat with light water. Transmutation is a nuclear reaction and it is **also** occurring. The source of neutrons in this instance is a real puzzle. The authors are porperly and understandably puzzled by what they have observed. I have sent a message to Cirillo alerting him to Mills' work, and to Mills, alerting him to Cirillo's work. No significant response from either; Mills had the courtesy to acknowledge the email. I should note that a pivtoal experiment by Mills long ago involved an electrolytic cell with light water, potassium carbonate electrolyte, which showed instant turn-on and produced excess heat when peopel working with FP cells were seeing long loading cycles. Among Mills' posted experiments is a gas phase cell with a tungsten heater, potassium carbonate and hydrogen, which produces intense plasmas. These elements are also present in the Cirillo cell. Mike Carrell
Does DOE have a temperature?
The fact that the DOE panel once again diminishes the value of all the thermal observations and measurements is perplexing. Harry The DOE review concludes: While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 12/2/04 8:32 AM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:11 PM 11/27/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Hi, This is my first post. I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess heat produced. Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun. This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity (rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF cells. Harry Veeder In replying to your query earlier I should have also noted that centrifugal force can be used to advantage in chemical processes, and may have energy generation prospects as well. I will post separately a summary of 2003 posts of mine on the subject of Gravi-chem. Regards, Horace Heffner That is interesting innovation. I looked at your other posts where you describe the concept in more detail. It is not quite what I mean, BUT it does suggest away of testing my hunch. My hunch is that earth's gravity plays a essential role in the generation excess heat in a CF cell. If I am correct, then rotating the same apparatus will change the amount of excess heat generated. ( I am not sure if the change will be positive or negative.) Of course, to properly test my hunch, the CF cell would have to be designed in such a way that the electrolytic performance is not appreciably improved or worsened when undergoing rotation. Would it be possible build such an 'indifferent electrolytic cell'? Harry
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 12/2/04 12:40 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:58 AM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote: My hunch is that earth's gravity plays a essential role in the generation excess heat in a CF cell. If I am correct, then rotating the same apparatus will change the amount of excess heat generated. ( I am not sure if the change will be positive or negative.) Of course, to properly test my hunch, the CF cell would have to be designed in such a way that the electrolytic performance is not appreciably improved or worsened when undergoing rotation. Would it be possible build such an 'indifferent electrolytic cell'? So you hope to do an experiment? Regards, Horace Heffner Of some kind. I hope. I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research. I thought your focus was D+D fusion. Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the conservation laws by physical means? Harry
Re: CF and Orientation .
on 12/2/04 5:36 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 4:02 PM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote: I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research. I thought your focus was D+D fusion. Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the conservation laws by physical means? Actually, if you look at the vortex archives at http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex around June or July 2003, you will see that the gravi-chem stuff was merely comments I posted here on vortex as a result of what I considered some bad math written by folks who apparently had no concept of bouyancy. It did seem to take a life of its own though because it is so general in nature and so unexplored. The immediate energy application is probably in the mundane field of hydrogen generation I would guess. If there is indeed free energy to be had from the theory (I doubt it) then it is likely to be had in chemical form. The only clear relation of gravi-chem to CF is the fact that electrolysis is one mode of CF and a more efficient electrolysis merely results in a better COP (coefficient of power) for a CF device. However, extremely high g forces change the location of the nucleus to a point away from the center of charge of the electron cloud. The electron cloud can thus be compressed, and electron shielding can potentially be increased. The distance between deuterons in D2, D2O, and D3O+ molecules can be decreased under extreme pressure, thereby increasing the potential for fusion. As evidenced by neutron stars, *some* degree of gravitational force or compressive force will ultimately cause nuclear reactions. The problem is how best to make use of such a force in a practically achievable domain. My main focus, if I have such, being a rank amateur and irreverant member of the free energy lunatic finge, is collaboration in search of a solution to the energy problem. There is also the joy of seeing various anomalies and puzzles posted here on occasion. When you subscribe to vortex you never know for sure when you wake up exactly what you might possess your thinking by evening. 8^) After reading some more, it seems to me a more accurate name for this field is non-inertial-chemistry. Gravi-chemistry is misleading unless you are endorsing the general theory of relativity which assumes that an accelerating or non-inertial frame of reference and a gravitational field are indistinguishable. Harry Harry
Bursts of power.
One of the criticisms of the DOE panel was that the cells did not provide continuous excess power over the entire time span of an experiment. I think this is natural trait of CF systems, but it is not without value as the DOE panel implies. If one can learn to predict when a cell will produce bursts of power, the cell is potentially a useful source of power. Harry Veeder
Is charge always conserved?
Since it is acceptable to question conservation laws on this forum, perhaps CF is possible because the charge on subatomic particles is not conserved in all contexts. Note: This is different from the concept of 'charge shielding'. Harry Veeder
Re: Is charge always conserved?
Harry Veeder wrote: Since it is acceptable to question conservation laws on this forum, perhaps CF is possible because the charge on subatomic particles is not conserved in all contexts. Note: This is different from the concept of 'charge shielding'. Furthermore, consider the fusion process: d + d -- He + gamma When deuterium fuses in a vacuum the wavelength of resulting gamma radiation is relatively short. If deuterium is able fuse in a Pd matrix because it periodically experiences a charge reduction (not charge shielding) the wavelength of the radiation will be longer. If a CF cell produces longer wavelength emissions, it might be evidence that subatomic charge is variable (not conserved) in some contexts. Harry
Re: Swartz's phantom papers added to LENR-CANR database
Just a suggestion. It might be helpful to develop a system of qualifying flags. e.g. One flag would denote the web site manager's knowledge of a paper's state of completion. Harry Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay! Even though I doubt these papers exist in any tangible sense, I have added them to our database. I hope that makes everyone happy. Except Swartz, obviously. I hope that frustrates him now that he has nothing to complain about. The complete list is attached. This list comes from the All Authors index, under S: http://lenr-canr.org/LibFrame2.html It is also in the Complete Bibliography: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm Swartz is not listed in the first index Authors with papers here because he has not submitted any papers to LENR-CANR. (Or at least, we never actually got any from him.) His phantom ICCF10 papers are not listed in the Special Collection screen because they are not part of our collection, obviously. They may or may not be part of the official printed proceedings, but I doubt those proceedings will ever materialize, so whether his papers are included in them or not is more of a theological or metaphysical question than a practical one. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.Swartz, M.R., Quasi-one-dimensional model of electrochemical loading of isotopic fuel into a metal. Fusion Technol., 1992. 22: p. 296. 2.Swartz, M.R. A Method to Improve Algorithms Used to Detect Steady State Excess Enthalpy. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. 3.Swartz, M.R. Some Lessons From Optical Examination of the PFC Phase-II Calorimetric Curves. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. 4.Swartz, M.R., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 74. 5.Swartz, M.R. Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations. in International Symposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Sources. 1994. Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus: Fusion Information Center, Salt Lake City. 6.Swartz, M.R., Improved calculations involving energy release using a buoyancy transport correction. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(3): p. 219. 7.Swartz, M.R., Possible deuterium production from light water excess enthalpy experiments using nickel cathodes. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(3): p. 68. 8.Swartz, M.R., Potential for positional variations in flow calorimetric systems. 1996. 9.Swartz, M.R., The Relationship between Input Power and Enthalpic Behavior of Nickel Cathodes During Light Water Electrolysis. 1996. 10.Swartz, M.R., Four Definitions of Power Ratio used to Describe Excess Enthalpy in Solid-State Loading Systems. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(2): p. 54. 11.Swartz, M.R., The Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air Surrounding a Calorimeter. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(2): p. 141. 12.Swartz, M.R., Experiments Using Nickel Cathodes. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(3): p. 68. 13.Swartz, M.R., Hydrogen Redistribution by Catastrophic Desorption in Selected Transition Metals. J. New Energy, 1996. 1(4): p. 26. 14.Swartz, M.R., Codeposition of palladium and deuterium. Fusion Technol., 1997. 32: p. 126. 15.Swartz, M.R., Consistency of the biphasic nature of excess enthalpy in solid-state anomalous phenomena with the quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading into a material. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 63. 16.Swartz, M.R., Phusons in nuclear reactions in solids. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 228. 17.Swartz, M.R., Explanation for Some Difference Between Reports of Excess Heat in Solid State Fusion Experiments. J. New Energy, 1997. 2(1): p. 60. 18.Swartz, M.R., Noise Measurement in Cold Fusion Systems. J. New Energy, 1997. 2(2): p. 56. 19.Swartz, M.R. Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. 20.Swartz, M.R., The Importance of Controlling Zero-Input Electrical Power Offset. J. New Energy, 1998. 3(1): p. 14. 21.Swartz, M.R., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems. J. New Energy, 1999. 4(2): p. 218-228. 22.Swartz, M.R. and G. Verner, Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion. J. New Energy, 1999. 3(4): p. 90-101. 23.Swartz, M.R., et al. Importance of nondimensional numbers in cold fusion. in Symposium on New Energy. 1999. Salt Lake City, UT. 24.Swartz, M.R., Further confirmation of optimal operating point behavior. 1999. 25.Swartz, M.R., Optimal Operating Point Analysis of Dr. Mizuno's, Dr. Arata's and Other Data. 1999. 26.Swartz, M.R., Patterns of success in research involving low
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
The world of light I know from daily experience doesn't fit into an optical fibre. Perhaps in other contexts the signal velocity of light does exceed C. Harry http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1 Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot (N Brunner et al. 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 203902).
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2:08 PM 12/7/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. It appears you are misinterpreting the subject graphic (or I am.) I take it as in incident count graph. It is a tabulation of photons by arrival times. Some photons arrive early, some late. It is not a pulse trace, but could be if all the photon's detection pulses were summed (pulse time averaged) together. I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. My point is that it pays to go way out on the tip of the trace as far as possible. In this case that would be at the single photon detection level. Now, the problem is that on average, the first photon may arrive early or late. On average we don't do better than c with a single fiber. My suggestion is to simultaneously transmit a given bit on lots of fibers at once. Then, *with any desired degree of but not perfect reliability*, based on the number of fibers used in a bundle, an early photon will be sensed within a time window that provides communication at greater than c velocity. We can do reliable communications way out on the front of the distribution. By sending multiple bits at a time in parallel, along with a timing pulse, we can use error detection and correction techniques to greatly increase reliability. By sending photons on two bundles, one bundle having photons sent if the data bit is 1, the other having photons sent if the data is 0, we can reliably do error correction at the bit level way out on the tip of the pulse, before any photons even arrive at velocity c. A more simple test of concept might be to use two bundles from Alice to Bob, with Bob having a repeater to send the data back to Alice on two return bundles. Alice could then measure the error rate as well as turn-around time. Regards, Horace Heffner The null result of Michelson-Morely experiment may also be some sort of statistical illusion. It seems to me the best way to look for an aether is to directly measure travel times, rather than infer travel times from an interference pattern. Since we now have the technological means to do so, somebody should do so. Harry
'The Little Commentary' by Copernicus
The following comes from http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Copernicus.html Harry Veeder - Around 1514 he distributed a little book, not printed but hand written, to a few of his friends who knew that he was the author even though no author is named on the title page. This book, usually called the Little Commentary, set out Copernicus's theory of a universe with the sun at [near!? HV] its centre. The Little Commentary is a fascinating document. It contains seven axioms which Copernicus gives, not in the sense that they are self evident, but in the sense that he will base his conclusions on these axioms and nothing else; see [79]. What are the axioms? Let us state them: 1.There is no one centre in the universe. 2.The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe. 3.The centre of the universe is near the sun. 4.The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars. 5.The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars. 6.The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it. 7.The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes. Some have noted that 2, 4, 5, and 7 can be deduced from 3 and 6 but it was never Copernicus's aim to give a minimal set of axioms. The most remarkable of the axioms is 7, for although earlier scholars had claimed that the Earth moved, some claiming that it revolved round the sun, nobody before Copernicus appears to have correctly explained the retrograde motion of the outer planets. Even when he wrote his Little Commentary Copernicus was planning to write a major work, for he wrote in it (see [77]):- Here, for the sake of brevity, I have thought it desirable to omit the mathematical demonstrations intended for my larger work. It is likely that he wrote the Little Commentary in 1514 and began writing his major work De revolutionibus in the following year. -
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Kyle wrote: ...if it *is* moving super-c, and not just some distortion, it is important to think about this, regardless of whether or not we can use it at the present time to transmit something. I agree. Harry
unsubscribe
subscribe
Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 5:48 PM 12/10/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Thank you for responding to my revised post. Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location. Atomic clocks eh? Hard to get delta t accurate to nanoseconds or even microseconds from the difference between absolute times on two clocks. You still have no reason to expect the average communication velocity will be faster than c. Even the subject article shows that. It is of no use to measure a few photons at faster than c when most are slower than c. It is the *average* communications turn around time that is important. That's why I included it in my definition. Regards, Horace Heffner My expectation is that group and phase forms can affect a distant receiver before the shock form arrives. It would amount to communication of energy without momentum. In other words, communication without 'bullets'. Harry
Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
Sorry I made a few typos and misused some terms. Harry Here is a proposal for a natural measure of FTL messaging. I say it is natural because it does not require a response message. The relevant variables are: 1) T - communication time. The time it takes to send and receive a message. 2) d - the distance between the receiver and the sender. Each of these constitute a message: a.Group velocity b.Phase velocity c.Shock velocity (Nagel's message) The messaging speed for each is then d/Tg, d/Tp, d/Ts. One would need to build a distant receiver which is capable of interpreting all three messages. Harry
Magnets Meddle With Melting
I don't have subscription, but I noticed another interesting headline in the current issue of Science. Could this phenomenon be used as a source of energy? Harry -- http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/ 10 Dec. Magnets Meddle With Melting Physicists puzzle over finding that a magnetic field raises the melting point of ice.
Re: Magnets Meddle With Melting
Jones Beene wrote: Harry Veeder writes, http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/ 10 Dec. Magnets Meddle With Melting Physicists puzzle over finding that a magnetic field raises the melting point of ice. Could this phenomenon be used as a source of energy? Probably not unless there was substantial assymetry. After all, pressure (or lack thereof) can alter the melting point, but it is fully reversible with no nonreciprocal element, therefore no chance for OU. When I read the headline I had this mind: the ambient temperature is greater than 0 deg. C, but the temperature of the ice remains at 0 deg. C just with a magnetic field. That would be most unusual, but I will have to read the paper to find out. Harry
Re: TEET foundation awards Iwamura, Yamada and Mizuno
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 9:56 AM 12/13/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: [Here is a message from Akito Takahashi.] Especially, nuclear transmutation studies by Iwamura et al., Yamada et al. and Mizuno et al. are now being seriously acknowledged by evaluators of the TEET Foundation who are highly respected scientists in Japan. For this reason alone Japan will probably trump the US very badly in the LENR business. Maybe they take the issues more seriously due to the high population density in relation to natural resources. It could be they have a much better eye for business than US scientists. Unlike the DOE, when looking at unexplainable data, they must sense that the value of research is not just based on consensus opinion of scientific merit, fear of a large probability of failure to advance, but rather the probability of success multiplied by the potential economic and social value. Regards, Horace Heffner When science ran away from oppressive religion she went to bed with the military-industrial complex. Harry
Re: Star wars ride again
Title: Re: Star wars ride again I am no expert, but I suspect that by the 1960's many skyscrapers were being engineered so they could be easily and neatly demolished. Evidently the floors of the towers were designed to fall like dominoes if the vertical loading exceeding some critical value. Harry RC Macaulay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some people in this group are simply too observant..like leaking pen. You noticed the video showed a slight tilt as the 2nd tower began to collapse. Just my point.. IF.. the twins came down as witnessed ..AND.. the explanation was that the fire section imploded ..WHICH IN TURN.. permitted the weight of the above structure to fall on the lower section ... causing a domino effect... this explanation begs more questions than it answers.. BECAUSE.. the tilting of one tower changes the dynamics of the imploding sections from tower one to tower two... hmmm.. Richard
Re: Efficient clothes drier uses De-humidifier?
The washer and dryer have different reasons for being. The former is truly a labour saving device because it reduces TOIL. The later is driven by a desire for speed and a lack of space for living. Harry
Re: Gravimagnetics and quantum gravity
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFLIK, GR presupposes that there is no difference between acceleration and gravity, This is a false assumption many people make. GR only actually assumes there is no difference at any given *point*. It is easy to theoretically distinguish between gravity, linear acceleration due to force, and angular accleration due to a centripetal force, by the nature of the tidal effects. GR treats all forms of acceleration as indistinguishable from gravity. The truth is GR is absolutely devoid of common sense. That is the power *and* the poverty of GR. Harry
Re: Nature reports more sonofusion results
Title: Re: Nature reports more sonofusion results NATURE does not mention the results of a better experiment published in spring 2004 in one of the physical review journals. Harry Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I have never heard of Impulse Devices http://www.impulsedevices.com/index.html. - JR] >From Nature, 432, 940-1, 23/30 ~Dec. 2004 Bubble-based fusion bursts onto the scene [WASHINGTON] A company in California is launching an experimental power reactor based on 'bubble fusion', despite reservations within the scientific community over whether the effect exists. Impulse Devices in Grass Valley hopes to sell its sonofusion research reactors for about US$250,000. It claims they use ultrasound to generate bubbles in 'heavy' water, made up of hydrogen's heavier isotope deuterium. The bubbles can be imploded rapidly, generating a high temperature that allows deuterium nuclei to undergo fusion reactions, it says. The technology could produce enough energy for electricity production in ten years, claims Mark Ludwig, chief executive of Impulse. But many scientists are not convinced. Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee claimed to have achieved fusion with a similar technique in 2002. But an internal review by other Oak Ridge scientists questioned the group's results, and the work remains in limbo (see Nature 416, 7; 2002).
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Title: Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05 Do you have a reference for that quote? Harry revtec at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that we have come back to Intelligent Design because the universe, as presently described by scientists, is still too small and too young to produce the complexity of a living cell by random processes. If Darwin would have had access to the findings of molecular biology and probability mathamatics that we have available today, do you think he would have given serious thought to writing such a book as Origin of the Species? Darwin himself stated, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Jeff
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. Anyway, the intelligent design theory is bigger than religion. Harry Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 13:08 04/01/2005 -0500, you wrote: Do you have a reference for that quote? Harry If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species, p. 179. Cheers Grimer
Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!
Title: Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis! Creationism still dominates evolutionary theory in one important respect: the notion that life and the universe have a beginning. The universe and life may have no ultimate beginning and no ultimate end. The universe and life may be contiguous with each other. Life may evolve but it may never be extinguished. Harry Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. I find this hypothesis intensely annoying! It does not solve the problem; it merely removes it from our planet to some other planet. If ET #1 guided our evolution, do we assume that some other ET (#2) was there to guide ET #1, and did #3 guide #2? It is an infinite recursion. At some point, an intelligent species must have arisen from purely natural causes without intervention by any other species. Since it had to happen at least once, why shouldn't we assume it happened again on earth? The hypothesis is also annoying because it is not falsifiable. Regarding the Darwin quote: Yes he said that, but it has not been demonstrated that any organ exists which could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications. Indeed, every organ I know of still has numerous existing successive slight modifications remaining in primitive species, including eyes, an example Darwin cited. Primitive eyes that can only sense the direction of light are way better than no eyes at all. Plus, anyone who thinks evolution is slow (or it does not exist) should learn about the growing crisis in antibiotic resistant diseases. This illustrates why ignorance is dangerous. We are frittering away the most potent drugs ever invented, mainly using them to keep the cost of meat low in the US. If this continues for a few more generations we will be back to the world as it was before 1940, when ordinary diseases often killed people of all ages. We have already thrown way the opportunity to eliminate tuberculosis, one of the most virulent diseases. - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC Annoying recursive hypothesis!
Jed Rothwell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Personally I do not feel life BEGINS by chance, although the subsequent evolution is plausibly Darwinian. Perhaps an E.T. (not necessarily God) has been 'guiding' the evolution of life on this planet. I find this hypothesis intensely annoying! It does not solve the problem; it merely removes it from our planet to some other planet. If ET #1 guided our evolution, do we assume that some other ET (#2) was there to guide ET #1, and did #3 guide #2? It is an infinite recursion. At some point, an intelligent species must have arisen from purely natural causes without intervention by any other species. Since it had to happen at least once, why shouldn't we assume it happened again on earth? Sure, but this does not rule out the possibility of an E.T. having played some other role in the evolutionary history of our planet. There is more to evolution then the evolution of 'intelligence'. Harry
Re: Intelligent Design
Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nick Palmer one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. I hope that someone will provide a good answer for that one... I certainly don't have it now, but will check my collection of Richard Dawkins material later-on in the mean time, it does bring to mind one very fascinating possibility Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry
Re: Intelligent Design
One? Perhaps there a few more examples. But why so few? Why are there no walking plants? Plants and animals both evolved from single celled organisms. Is there something about the first plant cells that prevented them from evolving the motor abilities of their animal cousins. Were the evolutionary possibilities of plants and animals limited by those first cells? Just wondering, Harry John Steck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Venus fly trap? -js Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry
Re: Intelligent Design
Mike Carrell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: snip Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? There is a counter example, a single celled organism called Euglena, which has self-mobility and carries chloroplasts, so it is both plant and animal. Mobility carries a large energy demand, which is not supplied by photosynthesis. What supplies the Euglena with the energy for self mobility? Harry
The Big Science Chill
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39360.html COMMENTARY The Big Science Chill By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld 01/07/05 5:00 AM PT When smart people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick up the pieces and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in the name of progress. Some entrepreneurs even take a different stab at the same idea with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why does the pure science community play by different rules? Many people think of scientific disciplines, such as chemistry or physics, as purely fact-based endeavors, not concerned with the fuzzy field of politics. That's rarely the case because when humans are involved, things often get messy. A perfect example is the question of cold fusion. Back in 1989, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had discovered cold fusion, or nuclear energy that could be released at room temperature and would produce clean, cheap energy. A media frenzy followed, but excitement over the announcement quickly dissipated when others had trouble replicating their results. Whether or not cold fusion will eventually work on a consistent basis is still up in the air. But the political fallout from the Pons and Fleischmann announcement was so bad that it almost completely wiped out research in an extremely important field. Because of this announcement, and the subsequent failure to reproduce results, cold-fusion research became stigmatized and regarded by many scientists as a hoax. What Happened to Persistence? In 1999, Time magazine called cold fusion one of the 100 worst ideas of the century, and others ridiculed it as nothing more than an Elvis sighting. But not everyone agrees. Scientists such as SRI International's Michael McKubre and Peter Hagelstein, who designed the X-ray laser that was to be a part of President Reagan's Star Wars anti-ballistic missile system, are betting cold fusion can work. And governments around the world are putting money into research. Given that there are smart, competent people on both sides of the debate, one might wonder what happened to the American attitude of accepting past failures and trying to build on them. In this respect, the scientific community could learn a lot from Silicon Valley. When smart, well-regarded people in California's tech mecca fail, they pick up the pieces and the community pats them on the back for taking a risk in the name of progress. Heck, some entrepreneurs even take a different stab at the same idea with the hope that they'll be able to do it better. So why does the pure science community play by different rules? Slaves to Data Perhaps it's because there's a public perception that scientifically derived data cannot be subject to interpretation, and that skews behavior. Or, as some researchers have suggested, maybe it's because the scientific community acts under a paternalistic type of data-releasing regime that says results should not be announced to the impressionable public until they are sanctioned by the top dogs of the group. This scientific McCarthyism has a chilling effect on research and could be holding America back from major scientific breakthroughs. If we could figure out cold fusion, we'd have a clean, cheap energy source that would last for an incredibly long time. And that would mean less reliance on oil exporting countries, as well as a cleaner environment and a better standard of living. So even if some experts say it's a long shot, isn't it worth working towards? Yet the U.S. Department of Energy continues to tiptoe around the issue, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refuses to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. That's almost a categorical denial of any research money for this important field. Further, getting an article on cold fusion published in any scientific journal is almost impossible. The scientific community is starting to look pretty regressive and reactionary. Saving Good Ideas We have always been open to proposals that have scientific merit as determined by peer review, said the Energy Department's James Decker. But what happens when the peers in question might lose their hot fission research money if cold fusion were possible? Or consider the comments of an embittered Fleischmann to a Wired reporter in 1998: What you have to ask yourself is who wants this discovery? Do you imagine the seven sisters [the world's top oil companies] want it? ... And do you really think that the Department of Defense wants electrochemists producing nuclear reactions in test tubes? The answer is that Americans want a clean, cheap and abundant energy source if they can get it. And they certainly don't want some other country, potentially one with terrorists, to figure it out first. Bureaucracy in both the private and public sectors can kill good ideas. America needs a return to the days when renaissance men and women populated the field of scientific discovery. If the cold fusion
Re: The Big Science Chill
Keith, You sound very cynical. The scientific climate may be chilly in the US, but in Canada you will get frost bite in 30 seconds if you mention the subject! ;-) I noticed that only two people from Canada attended the last CF conference, and I don't think they were scientists or engineers. Harry Keith Nagel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Harry, The article has its heart in the right place, but I call bullshit on this line. The answer is that Americans want a clean, cheap and abundant energy source if they can get it. Can you or the author provide any proof of such a claim? I'm just not seeing it here. I mean, would we be electing oil company executives to the White House if we felt so? Also, the article really drops its trousers on this line. the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refuses to grant a patent on any invention claiming cold fusion. That's almost a categorical denial of any research money for this important field. This one fact explains the whole of the articles rhetorical questioning. Change this situation, and the lead paragraph would probably be as true for CF as for any other commercial endeavor. K.
Re: The Big Science Chill
Perhaps the majority (~60%) of Americans aren't concerned. However, I would say the rest of Americans are concerned. The popularity of Fahrenheit 911 is a good example. Harry Keith Nagel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Harry. You write: You sound very cynical. No, it's a sincere question. I feel rather like I'm in one of those psychological experiments where the proctor and a few confederates are trying to convince someone that the air is green. Don't you see the green air? I do And so do I What's wrong with you that you don't see the green air? This goes on for awhile, and sure enough most folks will agree that the air _is_ a bit greenish after all... Anyway, I'm just not seeing any evidence that anything close to a tiny number of US citizens are actually concerned about energy issues. Maybe it's a big issue in Canada, I don't know. But here's just one example, Total SUV sales to date ~24 millions Total Hybrid car sales to date ~.5 million Show me otherwise, I'd love to be wrong about this. K.
New plastic can better convert solar energy
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1105319242587_49?hub=Sci Tech New plastic can better convert solar energy Canadian Press TORONTO Researchers at the University of Toronto have invented an infrared-sensitive material that's five times more efficient at turning the sun's power into electrical energy than current methods. The discovery could lead to shirts and sweaters capable of recharging our cellphones and other wireless devices, said Ted Sargent, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the university. Sargent and other researchers combined specially-designed minute particles called quantum dots, three to four nanometres across, with a polymer to make a plastic that can detect energy in the infrared. Infrared light is not visible to the naked eye but it is what most remote controls emit, in small amounts, to control devices such as TVs and DVD players. It also contains a huge untapped resource -- despite the surge in popularity of solar cells in the 1990s, we still miss half of the sun's power, Sargent said. In fact, there's enough power from the sun hitting the Earth every day to supply all the world's needs for energy 10,000 times over,'' Sargent said in a phone interview Sunday from Boston. He is currently a visiting professor of nanotechnology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sargent said the new plastic composite is, in layman's terms, a layer of film that catches'' solar energy. He said the film can be applied to any device, much like paint is coated on a wall. We've done the same thing, but not with something that just sit there on the wall the way paint does,'' said the Ottawa native. We've done it to make a device which actually harnesses the power in the room in the infrared.'' The film can convert up to 30 per cent of the sun's power into usable, electrical energy. Today's best plastic solar cells capture only about six per cent. Sargent said the advance would not only wipe away that inefficiency, but also resolve the hassle of recharging our countless gadgets and pave the way to a true wireless world. We now have our cellphones and our BlackBerries and we're walking around without the need to plug in, in order to get our data,'' he said. But we seem trapped at the moment in needing to plug in to get our power. That's because we charge these things up electrically, from the outlet. But there's actually huge amounts of power all around us coming from the sun.'' The film has the ability to be sprayed or woven into shirts so that our cuffs or collars could recharge our IPods, Sargent said. While that may sound like a Star Trek dream, venture capitalists are keen to Sargent's invention. Josh Wolfe, managing partner at Lux Capital, a New York City-based venture capital firm, said while such a luxury may be five years away, the technology knows no bounds. When you have a material advance which literally materially changes the way that energy is absorbed and transmitted to our devices... somebody out there tinkering away in a bedroom or in a government lab is going to come up with a great idea for a new device that will shock us all,'' he said in a phone interview. When the Internet was created nobody envisioned that the killer app (application) would be e-mail or instant messaging.'' Sargent's work was published in the online edition of Nature Materials on Sunday and will appear in its February issue.
Re: Funny comments
Give me liberty, or give me death! -- Patrick Henry G.W. Bush's motto is: Give them liberty, or give them death! Harry Harry leaking pen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: where did this come from? and take leadership roles? please, these guys coming back are making vietnam vets look like ex cops. its a new generation of homeless we're creating. and i find it funny that you talk of the lies of one president, without discussing the lies of the other. one lie was about a personal happenstance, one has caused the death of over 1000 americans, and the loss of limb of another 10k, and the death of 150k iraqis. sorry, id prefer the hippy lies. On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:39:15 -0600, RC Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Red feet never lie, the green feet never tell the truth. A green foot need not give any answer, or he may give an answer in the form of a question such as.. why do you ask?.. or any number of others.. A question may be a method of shielding a lie. A skilled green foot, may in a trial courtroom setting ( or congressional hearing or a University policy meeting) can tell the truth nine different ways without lying. My purpose in the start of the thread was a quick study in an ethics theme regarding writing quadradic computing software for ethics. One of the most profound questions ever posed in recorded history on the subject was asked of Jesus by Pilate.. what is truth? Was he lying and knew the truth, or was it because he didn't know? Watching our government conduct business and the war in Iraq begs the question.. what happens when our soldiers return,, gain maturity and take leadership roles? We see the results of the hippy generation of the Vietnam era personified by Clinton. Will a code of ethics be functional for the emerging body of youth ? Or will they all become like skilled green feet ? Basic and applied research depends on addressing questions of this nature... i.e hot vs cold fusion. Richard
Re: chew toys and eotvos
Nick Reiter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, the politics of antic semantics or semantic antics are getting threadbare. Time for a chew toy. One of the voices in the wilderness of gravity and antigravity research that I have never seen kicked around here on Vortex is the eternally running campaign by Uncle Al Schwartz having to do with chirality and parity violation. The page is still the same: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm I swapped mails with Al a couple years back. I thought that maybe some of what I was seeing at the time with minor weight transients in chiral crystals would fit his modelling. Al was skeptical, but honestly so, as I am myself. Anyone out there ever dip into Schwartz's work in a theoretical way, or try any experiments with chiral masses as he suggests? I think any measure of weight, is really a measure of inertia. Thus a change in weight is really a change in the inertia of the body. The only way to definitely measure a change in gravity is to measure the time of fall from a given height. As you can see I prefer 'anti-inertia' research to 'anti-gravity' research. Harry
Re: chew toys and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:56 pm 11-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: snip I think any measure of weight, is really a measure of inertia. Thus a change in weight is really a change in the inertia of the body. The only way to definitely measure a change in gravity is to measure the time of fall from a given height. As you can see I prefer 'anti-inertia' research to 'anti-gravity' research. Harry I agree with that Harry - and I think it is very perceptive - if you will forgive my sounding patronizing. ;-) I have often thought that when I standing on the ground I am really being accelerated in a stationery position by the force being applied through the soles of my feet. In this way one can see more clearly that weight does indeed represent inertia. I would stop short of saying weight represents inertia. Rather, it is the measure (quantification) of weight that represents inertia. Qualitative judgements are as important as quantitative judgements in forging a new physics. Be wary of quantifiable analogies. Now if I were to circle the earth at orbital velocity then I would experience equilibrium between two quite distinct forces the gravitational force acting downwards and the inertial force acting upwards. Then you should feel your weight, just as you do standing on the surface of the Earth. I believe these two forces act at distinct levels, or depths if you prefer, of matter. To illustrate what I mean with an analogy, consider a more familiar set of forces which are conveniently spatially separate so that one can really see what is going on - one can visualise the gravitational force as acting on the keel and hull of matter, and the inertial force acting on the sail of matter. This brings to mind a wonderful example I saw of a body (more specifically a yacht) which was stationary under the action of two forces acting at different levels of matter. The yacht was trying to enter Littehampton harbour. The tide was going out and the combined tide and river flow was driving the yacht out to sea. In contrast, a rather strong wind was blowing on-shore and driving the yacht into the harbour. The net result that there was a wonderful sight of a yacht sailing away like the clappers but completely stationary relative to me standing on the harbour wall. Cheers Grimer As poetry this opens a portal to a new physics. But if you process the poetry with establishment physics you risk closing the portal. Harry
Ant-inertia and the humming bird.
Perhaps the humming (flapping) of the humming bird continuously modifies the law of inertia for the wings so it would require less effort for the bird to flap its wings. After that, conventional aerodynamics kicks in and keeps the bird aloft. For example, the law of inertia might be temporarily modified so that the natural motion of matter becomes curvilinear, instead of linear. Harry
serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if I were to circle the earth at orbital velocity then I would experience equilibrium between two quite distinct forces the gravitational force acting downwards and the inertial force acting upwards. Then you should feel your weight, just as you do standing on the surface of the Earth. With respect, I can't agree. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the gravitational force acts downwards on the neutrons (the nuclear keel) and the inertial force acts upwards on the protons (the nuclear sail) of each nucleus (Das Boot) in my body. Then those nuclei would be under a strain. If I had a teeny weeny and unbelievably sensitive strain gauge I could measure those teeny weeny strains, though they would be incredibly small because the inertial and gravitational forces involved are minute compared to the forces holding protons and neutrons together. Now, are you really suggesting that I could FEEL those strains? You can't be serious! 8-) Cheers Grimer Yes I am serious. Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, but for the sake of argument you have divested the neutron of inertia and the proton of gravity. Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:05 pm 12-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, but for the sake of argument you have divested the neutron of inertia and the proton of gravity. Harry Oh dear. I'll try just once more! I am only too well aware of the fact that protons and neutrons have inertia and gravity, which is precisely why I prefaced my remarks with the words for the sake of argument. I couldn't use the names of the particle [Thing 1 say] which is seen by gravity, nor could I use the name of the particle which is seen [Thing 2, say] by inertia coz .to adapt those immortal lines from Tom Lehrer's The Elements to to the sub-elements. # And there may be many others but they haven't been disca-vard. Bum, ba-da-ta tum tum, bum bum! ... # Thing 1 and Thing 2 are empty spaces in a minimalist table; analogous to the empty spaces in the Mendeleev table before the elements that occupied those spaces were disca-vard. Cheers Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:42 am 13-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? By George, (s)he's got it, Pickering. By George, (s)he's got it. ;^) Of course they do. That was implicit in the analogy. It's no good having a sail and a hull if they haven't got a thing-force to hold them together, is it! 8-) Cheers. Grimer All this flows from _your_ force analysis of orbital motion. I think it is a mistaken analysis because it is based on an analogy between orbital motion and a body in a centrifuge. A body orbits the earth because it is in free fall. There is simply no outward force associated with that sort of motion. The bottom line is mechanical systems do not accurately model gravitational systems. However, for sake of argument, I will accept your force analysis of orbital motion, but you still have a problem explaining why weight should not arise because most bodies consist of protons and neutrons. Your explanation only covers bodies composed of thing 1 and thing 2 particles. Harry
Re: Solar-Cold Fusion Spacecraft Propulsion
Frederick Sparber at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not so sure about that numerically challenged part, Horace. I come up with about 90 lbs thrust per square meter for CO2 sublimation, and about 20 lbs per square meter for H2O ice sublimation thrust. With CO2 Smoke and Mirrors you can fly a spacecraft toward the sun too. :-) Frederick How would one measure thrust from sublimation to check the theoretical predictions? Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 15:41 13/01/2005 -0500, Harry wrote: All this flows from _your_ force analysis of orbital motion. I think it is a mistaken analysis because it is based on an analogy between orbital motion and a body in a centrifuge. A body orbits the earth because it is in free fall. There is simply no outward force associated with that sort of motion. The bottom line is mechanical systems do not accurately model gravitational systems. I think I can see where our disagreement on this bit lies. You take the rather naive view that motion in a straight line (straight relative the frame of the fixed stars) is forceless. My position is Gravity is not a 'force' in the sense of a push or a pull, so orbital motion is NOT a balance of 'forces'. I think motion under gravity is inconsistent with the first law of motion as drafted by Newton. I don't. I view motion in a straight line in a way more in keeping with the modern science of Cybernetics and Information Theory. I see motion in a straight line as controlled by equal and opposite Beta-aether forces on the sides of a body. Any deviation from a straight line is counteracted by negative feedback from the Beta-aether. Taking this view, centrifugal forces are REAL forces. May be so, but I don't think they are real or apparent in the context of orbital motion. However, for sake of argument, I will accept your force analysis of orbital motion, but you still have a problem explaining why weight should not arise because most bodies consist of protons and neutrons. Your explanation only covers bodies composed of thing 1 and thing 2 particles. Yes, but most bodies also consist of atoms. And had we been having this discussion in the nineteenth century you would have been singing, that century's equivalent of - If only I could sing and dance. # There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium, And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium, And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium, And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium, Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium, And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium, And gold and protactinium and indium and gallium, And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium. # # There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium, And boron, gadolinium, .# .and if someone had told you, Ah, yes. But inside each of those allegedly indivisible \ atoms there is this teeny-weeny Thing 1 core which grabs virtually all the mass. And this teeny-weeny Thing 1 core is surrounded by a wispy Thing 2 cloud which grabs virtually all the space,. you would have laughed him to scorn, and said. Pull the other one. It's got bells on. And yet Thing 1 and Thing 2 have a Thingee Force which holds them together; and they can be put in an environment where the atom will suffer internal strain. In some environments they suffer internal strain. but orbiting free fall motion is strain free. ...The way of Tao. Harry
Re: Whats new continue
Title: Re: Whats new continue RC Macaulay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Creationism vs. Darwinism.. My simple mind looks at a 3 dollar wind up pocket watch ( Mickey Mouse type preferred) and a yardstick and ponders. If I wind up the watch and as it runs I witness the beginning of a measure of time.. or ..did time exist before I started the watch? Next. I have a ladder that has legs that can extend to infinite height. Taking the yard stick , I began measuring height by the yard . How long would it take me to measure to the top ? If the watch never stops.. regardless of how much time elapses, that interval will NEVER equal the amount of time that had passed BEFORE the watch was started. Same for the yardstick. Regardless of how much height is measured. it will NEVER equal the distance below the point at which you began measuring. As idiotic as this post reads, it makes a point. That being you can theorize evolution vs creationalism forever and still miss the evidence staring you in the face. Time is... length is. explain its origin. Richard Perhaps they have no origin, in the same way as Mr. Big has no origin. Perhaps time and space are just qualities of Mr. Big. Harry
Re: whats new continue
Title: Re: whats new continue If my answer is unresponsive, does that mean only certain answers are permitted like in the riddle you posed about the two Indian tribes? Harry RC Macaulay at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not so fast Harry,, when challenged by the intellectual Darwainians, their challenge in itself presupposes they can prove evolution. Evidence of changes ,are of in itself, no proof. My question is simple explain the origin of time and distance. Mr big discounted as an unresponsive answer. Richard
