[Vo]:Coming in out of the cold: nuclear fusion, for real
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html Coming in out of the cold: nuclear fusion, for real By Michelle Thaller, csmonitor.com / June 6, 2005 PASADENA, CALIF. For the last few years, mentioning cold fusion around scientists (myself included) has been a little like mentioning Bigfoot or UFO sightings. After the 1989 announcement of fusion in a bottle, so to speak, and the subsequent retraction, the whole idea of cold fusion seemed a bit beyond the pale. But that's all about to change. A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of California at Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing. [Editor's note: The original version misnamed the scientists' institution.] Before going into their specific experiment, it's probably a good idea to define exactly what nuclear fusion is, and why we're so interested in understanding the process. This also gives me an excuse to talk about how things work deep inside the nuclei of atoms, a topic near and dear to most astronomers (more on that later). Simply put, nuclear fusion means ramming protons and neutrons together so hard that they stick, and form a single, larger nucleus. When this happens with small nuclei (like hydrogen, which has only one proton or helium, which has two), you get a lot of energy out of the reaction. This specific reaction, fusing two hydrogen nuclei together to get helium, famously powers our sun (good), as well as hydrogen bombs (bad). Fusion is a tremendous source of energy; the reason we're not using it to meet our everyday energy needs is that it's very hard to get a fusion reaction going. The reason is simple: protons don't want to get close to other protons. Do you remember learning about electricity in high school? I sure do - I dreaded it whenever that topic came around. I had a series of well-meaning science teachers that thought it would be fun for everyone to hold hands and feel a mild electric shock pass their arms. Every time my fists clenched and jerked and I had nothing consciously do with it, my stomach turned. In addition, I have long, fine hair, and was often made a victim of the Van de Graf generator - the little metal ball with a rubber belt inside it that creates enough static electricity to make your hair stand on end. Yeesh. Anyway, hopefully you remember the lesson that two objects having different electrical charges (positive and negative) attract one another, while those with the same charge repel. It's a basic law of electricity, and it definitely holds true when two protons try to get close together. Protons have positive charges, and they repel each other. Somehow, in order for fusion to work, you've got to overcome this repulsive electrical force and get the things to stick together. Here's where an amazing and mysterious force comes in that, although we don't think about it in our day-to-day lives, literally holds our matter together. There are four universal forces of nature, two of which you're probably familiar with: gravity and electromagnetism. But there are two other forces that really only come in to play inside atomic nuclei: the strong and weak nuclear forces (and yes, the strong force is the stronger of the two, the weak is weaker. Scientists really have a way with names, dont they?) I'm going to focus on the strong force, as that's the one responsible for nuclear fusion. The strong force is an attractive force between protons and neutrons - it wants to stick them together. If the strong force had its way, the entire universe would be one big super-dense ball of protons and neutrons, one big atomic nucleus, in fact. Fortunately, the strong force only becomes strong at very small scales: about one millionth billionth of a meter. Yes, that's 0.001 meters. Any farther away, and the strong force loses its grip. But if you can get protons and neutrons that close together, the strong force becomes stronger than any other force in nature, including electricity. That's important- all protons have the same charge, so they'd like to fly away from each other. But if you can get them close together, inside the volume of an atomic nucleus, the strong force will bind them together. The whole trick with fusion is you've got to get protons close enough together for the strong force to overcome their electrical repulsion and merge them together into a nucleus. The sun does this pretty much by brute force. The sun has over 300,000 times the mass of the Earth, which means there's a lot of gravity weighing down on its core. That pressure gets the sun's internal temperature up to several millions of degrees, which means that particles inside the sun's core are flying around at huge velocities. Everything is moving around so fast that protons sometimes get slammed
Re: [Vo]:Coming in out of the cold: nuclear fusion, for real
This is Crystal Fusion. I don't see how it qualifies as Pyroelectric fusion. There could be a clue to how fusion takes place in Condensed Matter, and that could forward our understanding of the Condensed Matter LENR reaction taking place inside Nickel or Palladium. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Pyroelectric fusion, old news. Though elements of it are used in the finnish patent. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html Coming in out of the cold: nuclear fusion, for real By Michelle Thaller, csmonitor.com / June 6, 2005 PASADENA, CALIF. For the last few years, mentioning cold fusion around scientists (myself included) has been a little like mentioning Bigfoot or UFO sightings. After the 1989 announcement of fusion in a bottle, so to speak, and the subsequent retraction, the whole idea of cold fusion seemed a bit beyond the pale. But that's all about to change. A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of California at Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing. [Editor's note: The original version misnamed the scientists' institution.] Before going into their specific experiment, it's probably a good idea to define exactly what nuclear fusion is, and why we're so interested in understanding the process. This also gives me an excuse to talk about how things work deep inside the nuclei of atoms, a topic near and dear to most astronomers (more on that later). Simply put, nuclear fusion means ramming protons and neutrons together so hard that they stick, and form a single, larger nucleus. When this happens with small nuclei (like hydrogen, which has only one proton or helium, which has two), you get a lot of energy out of the reaction. This specific reaction, fusing two hydrogen nuclei together to get helium, famously powers our sun (good), as well as hydrogen bombs (bad). Fusion is a tremendous source of energy; the reason we're not using it to meet our everyday energy needs is that it's very hard to get a fusion reaction going. The reason is simple: protons don't want to get close to other protons. Do you remember learning about electricity in high school? I sure do - I dreaded it whenever that topic came around. I had a series of well-meaning science teachers that thought it would be fun for everyone to hold hands and feel a mild electric shock pass their arms. Every time my fists clenched and jerked and I had nothing consciously do with it, my stomach turned. In addition, I have long, fine hair, and was often made a victim of the Van de Graf generator - the little metal ball with a rubber belt inside it that creates enough static electricity to make your hair stand on end. Yeesh. Anyway, hopefully you remember the lesson that two objects having different electrical charges (positive and negative) attract one another, while those with the same charge repel. It's a basic law of electricity, and it definitely holds true when two protons try to get close together. Protons have positive charges, and they repel each other. Somehow, in order for fusion to work, you've got to overcome this repulsive electrical force and get the things to stick together. Here's where an amazing and mysterious force comes in that, although we don't think about it in our day-to-day lives, literally holds our matter together. There are four universal forces of nature, two of which you're probably familiar with: gravity and electromagnetism. But there are two other forces that really only come in to play inside atomic nuclei: the strong and weak nuclear forces (and yes, the strong force is the stronger of the two, the weak is weaker. Scientists really have a way with names, dont they?) I'm going to focus on the strong force, as that's the one responsible for nuclear fusion. The strong force is an attractive force between protons and neutrons - it wants to stick them together. If the strong force had its way, the entire universe would be one big super-dense ball of protons and neutrons, one big atomic nucleus, in fact. Fortunately, the strong force only becomes strong at very small scales: about one millionth billionth of a meter. Yes, that's 0.001 meters. Any farther away, and the strong force loses its grip. But if you can get protons and neutrons that close together, the strong force becomes stronger than any other force in nature, including electricity. That's important- all protons have the same charge, so they'd like to fly away from each other. But if you can get them close together, inside the volume of an atomic nucleus, the strong force will bind them together
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Cold Fusion is a fraud, a lie. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=22 To: *Kevmo* Cold fusion is a lie. It doesn't exist anywhere in the universe aside from the fevered imaginations of the scammers and those duped into believing it. 14 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=14#14 posted on *Wed 12 Feb 2014 04:07:49 PM PST* by cripplecreekhttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ecripplecreek/(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/reply?c=14 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3122281.14;reftype=comment| To 13 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=22#13 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/replies?c=14 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/abuse?c=14] -- To: *cripplecreek* CHF is a lie. It's a scam to the tune of hundreds of $billions. CHF corner-turn has been 50 years, and that has been 60 years ongoing; LENR corner-turn has been about 5 years for the last 3-4 years. CHF cost hundreds of $billions in TAX dollars, while LENR has cost something in the tens of $Millions, and it has been almost all private money. CHF IP is worthless; LENR IP sold for $20M a few weeks ago. CHF con artists publish breathless articles about something that took place over 1 billionth of a second; LENR demonstrations have lasted days, weeks, and even months. Yup. If LENR scientists wanted to learn how to scam, they would take lessons from CHF frauds. 15 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=15#15 posted on *Wed 12 Feb 2014 04:15:30 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/reply?c=15 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3122281.15;reftype=comment| To 14 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=22#14 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/replies?c=15 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/abuse?c=15] On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send links.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
- What causes the anomalous excess heat? An hypothesis.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3122363/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3122363/posts - Wed 12 Feb 2014 10:12:04 PM PST · 26 of 26http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122363/posts?page=26#26 Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ to *ATOMIC_PUNK* Inability to want to comprehend? ***That would describe Skeptopaths PERFECTLY. Active denial of giving a damn about 14000 replications? ***Yup. Anti-Science Luddites would be a perfect description of such an attitude. Paycheck-poor feet-In-The-Sand Attitude? ***Simply reaching at this point. PissPoor Attitude would make a better representation, with the Piss pouring down your feet into the sand. Simply Intellectually tired of caring ! ***Anti-Science Luddites. They don't care, they can't be bothered to care, they don't want to care but yet they still log onto these threads What an amazing display of vigorous ignorance!!! Yea that about covers it ! ***Yup. The AdamHenry*BandWagon index is high for CHF, low for cold fusion. You seagulls have demonstrated that over and over again. Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3122363,26 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?reftype=comment;refid=3122363.26| To 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122363/posts?page=24#24 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122363/replies?c=26 On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: *tacticalogic* *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?* Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment| To 31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion.* Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment| To 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33] -- To: *tacticalogic* *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it.* Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF) experiments haven't even broken overunity, let alone ignition. *Nuclear fusion hits energy milestone*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140 The final reaction took place in a tiny hot spot about half the width of a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It released 17.3 kilojoules - almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel. look again at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of it. So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order of magnitude here or there. That doesn't change the fact that LENR is 12 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. look at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.0003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained periods. Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6 s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I am not sure. ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k. No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few have generated 10 to 300 MJ. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Pulled Threads. Unfortunately, many of them were pulled from FR and my efforts to save them using Ubuntu software led to a debacle. Here's my first new attempt. Looks like the mod is back from vacation. http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3122363,26 In the *General/Chat* forum, on a thread titled * What causes the anomalous excess heat? An hypothesis.*, *Kevmo * wrote: Inability to want to comprehend? ***That would describe Skeptopaths PERFECTLY. Active denial of giving a damn about 14000 replications? ***Yup. Anti-Science Luddites would be a perfect description of such an attitude. Paycheck-poor feet-In-The-Sand Attitude? ***Simply reaching at this point. PissPoor Attitude would make a better representation, with the Piss pouring down your feet into the sand. Simply Intellectually tired of caring ! ***Anti-Science Luddites. They don't care, they can't be bothered to care, they don't want to care but yet they still log onto these threads What an amazing display of vigorous ignorance!!! Yea that about covers it ! ***Yup. The AdamHenry*BandWagon index is high for CHF, low for cold fusion. You seagulls have demonstrated that over and over again. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send links.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the beginning pitching it in St Louis. But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, what prize do you suggest be funded? ***The ones that would be funded are the ones who apply for the prize. Spaceship One was the winner because they demo'd to the requirements of X-Prize. Burt Rutan also builds sells airplanes, so his business was lifted up as a result. My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the gamma rays excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be done at a Techshop. Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP. In a way, Rossi already turned down a version of the X-Prize when he wouldn't test his device in front of Dick Smith for the $1M offered. If I were in Rossi's shoes (and KNEW I had a working cold fusion box), I'm not sure such a demo would be worth the effort and I also would doubt that Dick Smith would even pay it.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
One of the implications of Mills's Hydrino theory is that gravity acts
differently on a molecule in motion. I'm not sure I understand it.
Perhaps this is just another area where the hydrino theory describes the
mechanics better than QM.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the
charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful
ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing
more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
Harry
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: . When the MFMP says they are ready to claim they've sufficient signal to noise and sufficient replicability, ***The MFMP says they intend to test a NANOR http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/replicate but they haven't. The latest results from Dr. Hazeltein at MIT show a COP of 80, as opposed to the Celani wire which at MFMP is showing a COP of 1.125. There is a need for more activity in this open source realm. they will be in a position to submit that experimental protocol to a judging board ***There is no such judging board. That is why my proposal says that the judges should be of the choosing of the XPrize committee. along with funds to support replication by those skilled in the art ***Skilled in the art is too confining. We need to encourage those who are not currently skilled in the art and the best way to do that is with prize money. as agreed by the judging board and MFMP. ***presumptuous The question is whether it is worthwhile attempting to raise money for the prize prior to MFMP claiming they have achieved said replicability. ***The simple fact is, the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event has been replicated more than 14,000 times. Waiting for one particular organization to replicate it is a fool's errand.
Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!
This article is from 2006. Has there been any update since then? When are we allowed to say that Einstein's theory is off by 20 orders of magnitude due to 250 experiments performed? On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
Re: [Vo]:Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!
Here's an arrogant reply I received regarding this article: Experiment that is almost certainly wrong, or large galaxies would be sucking their local small cluster galaxies in at rates that astronomers would have seen a long time ago. First: the article is wrong. The magnetic analogue of the gravitational field is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of physics, and was predicted by Heaviside in 1892, 14 years before the special theory of relativity, and 24 years before the general theory of relativity, using an analogy with Maxwell's equations (which were already Lorentz invariant) but no one [then] knew why. Second: If the effect was genuinely a manifestation of a magnetic analogue of gravity (which does indeed exist) if it existed at the strength quoted, an enormous laboratory [called the universe -- you may have heard of it] would be able to duplicate the results in stars, galaxies, and clusters. It doesn't. That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously awesome experiment in eight years, On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Crowdsourcing. *** http://coldfusion3.com/blog/regulation-crowdfunding-could-jump-start-lenr-industry Regulation Crowdfunding could Jump Start LENR Industry Published February 21, 2014 | By jennifer A new kind of financing called Regulation Crowdfunding could provide an important new source of money for *low energy nuclear reaction* (LENR) research and development. Regulation crowdfundinghttp://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/what-the-proposed-crowdfunding-rules-could-cost-businesses/could also make it far easier for average people to invest in LENR http://coldfusion3.com/blog/why-lenr-will-lead-to-vast-new-fortunesand profit from it. http://coldfusion3.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/crowdfunding.jpg Crowdfunding is the use of the internet to raise small sums of money from large numbers of investors. Current US law allows organizationshttp://coldfusion3.com/blog/smoking-gun-of-lenr-fleischmann-project-results-duplicated-in-one-day-celani-cell-verified-as-lenr-devicesuch as the *Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project* to raise funds through crowdfunding but it doesn't allow them offer to offer equity (stock or ownership) to those who put up money. The JOBS Act passed by Congress in 2012 allows a company to raise up to $1 million in a year by selling equities to the public through Regulation Crowdfunding. That would allow companies such as LENUCO, NANORTechhttp://coldfusion3.com/blog/major-lenr-demonstrations-heldand Brillouin to offer average people equity in a *cold fusion venture* in exchange for funding. It could help an inventorhttp://coldfusion3.com/blog/miley-trying-to-commercialize-his-cold-fusion-processraise the money he needs to build an LENR prototypehttp://energycatalyzer3.com/news/rossi-reveals-details-of-new-factory-team-and-hot-ecat . One advantage to this is that small investors would be able to get equity in exchange for their money. A person might be able to get a share of an *LENR enterprise* for as little as $10. Crowdfunding investments would be limited to $2,000 under the SEC requirements. That could open new sources of financing because average people have a hard time investing in such companies. Companies also face limits because current US law requires up $2 million worth of *paperwork *to issue stock through an initial public offering. Brillouin Financing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgDRz5jFFTc That's the good news for *LENR entrepreneurs* and inventors in the US. The bad news is that Regulation Crowdfunding cannot go into effect until the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approves a set of ruleshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/10/23/sec-proposes-crowdfunding-rules/for it. The SEC is considering those rules which have generated some controversy. The controversy is over accounting requirements. The current ruleshttp://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9470.pdfwould require that a company seeking up to $100,000 in funding submit two years of financial statements and a tax return. Companies raising $100,000 to $500,000 will have to provide financial statements reviewed by a certified public accountant (CPA). *Companies *that raise between $500,000 and $1 million will have to submit to an audit. http://coldfusion3.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-01-31-at-3.02.06-PM-600x600.png Some critics believe that these regulations will make it too expensive for some companies to take advantage of regulation crowdfunding. Even with these limitations, regulation crowdfunding will be a tremendous opportunity for *LENR entrepreneurs.* The biggest challenge facing many LENR and *cold fusion inventors* is getting start up financinghttp://coldfusion3.com/blog/it%E2%80%99s-official-us-startup-admits-to-purchasing-rossi%E2%80%99s-e-cat-lenr-technology. Regulation Crowdfunding could allow such companies to get that financing. The crowdfunding rules have been finalized but it isn't clear when they will go into effect. Another advantage to regulation crowdfunding is that it could allow inventors to keep control of their LENR technologyhttp://coldfusion3.com/blog/lenr-pioneer-joins-forces-with-steam-engine-maker . Even with its limitations, Regulation Crowdfunding could play an important role in the development and *commercialization of LENR*. One hopes that entrepreneurs will take advantage of it. Related search: - crowdfunding OR crowdfund OR crowdfunded - entrepreneurs
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hundreds of birds die crashing into tall building every day, but we do not stop building tall buildings because of lost bird habitat. ***Next they will have to outlaw seagulls... Seagulls lure other birds to skyscraper deaths: study Posted: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 under Science in the Newshttp://www.royalsociety.org.nz/news/science-in-the-news http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/news/science-in-the-news http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/1997/09/04/seagulls-lure-other-birds-to-skyscraper-deaths-study/ London, Sept 4 AFP - Seagulls have learned to lure migrating birds to their deaths by guiding them into skyscrapers, New Scientist magazine reported today. Like the wreckers who used to lure ships on to rocks, the devious gulls cause their prey to crash into high glass buildings and then eat them up, the weekly reported. The phenomenon has been observed in the Canadian city Toronto, which is the home of the world's tallest structure, the CN Tower. While street-wise city birds learn to avoid bright lights and reflective glass, huge numbers of migrating species die every year crashing into the skyscrapers of the United States and Canada. Some collide with the glass, some drop from exhaustion, Michael Mesure, of Toronto's Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP), a voluntary group dedicated to rescuing stunned birds, told New Scientist. He said seagulls were now posing an extra threat to the migrant birds. The gulls started off scavenging dead birds that had been accidentally killed. But, said Mesure, as more gulls competed for food, some learned to drive birds into collisions. They had been seen herding the birds like sheep and driving them to their deaths. Daniel Klem, of the University of Pennsylvania in the United States, has calculated that lit-up buildings and smokestacks kill 100 million birds a year in North America. The carnage peaks during spring and autumn migrations when many species, especially songbirds, fly at night and at low altitudes, he told the weekly. The Sears Tower in Chicago killed 1500 birds a year and FLAP estimated that 10,000 birds a year died in Toronto's financial district. In the mid-1980s Toronto's CN Tower started turning its floodlights off for eight weeks in the middle of each three-month migration season after visitors complained that the ground was littered with dead birds. FLAP is trying to persuade the owners of other skyscrapers to do the same. So far the managers of 85 buildings in Toronto have agreed to ask tenants to pull their blinds and turn off their lights. AFP mel 04/09/97 11-01NZ *From:* ChemE Stewart $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar-project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ray-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
All: I found an interesting Cold FusionTheory Wiki http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory It's a start, at least. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones *From:* Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
A recent LENR crowdfunding example http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/e-cat-world-hho-experimentcrowdfunding-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-178527 E-Cat World HHO Experiment/Crowdfunding Proposal Posted on February 26, 2014 by adminhttp://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/* 19 Commentshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/e-cat-world-hho-experimentcrowdfunding-proposal/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/6c95383aa8ae38d3c561b61382e081db/ I'm pleased to post a proposed experiment sent to me by Alan Smith, the Managing Director of London-based startup Leap Forward Laboratory, Ltd. Leap Forward Lab will move into a permanent home in late summer, but meanwhile Alan has the space and facilities required for this in his own workshop. Alan has had a wide range of experience in the manufacturing and engineering professions -- see his LinkedIn profilehttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=109590201trk=nav_responsive_tab_profilefor details. What we are really trying to find out here is if there is some kind of unconventional reaction taking place when HHO gas is combined with a catalyzer, as has been suggested a number of experimenters. We are simply trying to get an answer one way or another here. Alan's proposal is to carry out an experiment to examine the comparative heat output of two HHO systems, one with simple combustion (naked flame) and the other using catalytic recombination. The proposal is embedded below, along with a download link. Alan will carry out the proposed experiment if we can raise $500 by April 1, 2014 to cover the cost of the equipment he will need for the experiment, so this will be a crowdfunded project. If you want to support this effort, please send a contribution via Paypal to me, Frank Acland, at frankacl...@yahoo.com. If we raise the the total funds needed by April 1, Alan will carry out the experiment. If the fundraising goal is not met by that time, all donations will be refunded, and the experiment will not go forward. As you will see in the document, Alan is asking for comments on the proposed experiment, and will review all ideas carefully -- but will make the final decision on how the experiment will be carried out. There is a section in the E-Cat World Forumhttp://www.e-catworld.com/forum/#/categories/e-cat-world-hho-experimentdedicated to the discussion of this project, where Alan will provide updates of progress, and post videos and data. ECW readers are encouraged to participate in the forum to ask questions, provide input, etc. I will provide updates about fundraising progress in the forum space. Lfl Experiment Proposal HHOhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/209348765/Lfl-Experiment-Proposal-HHOby ecatworld http://www.scribd.com/ecatworld On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Crowdfunding is the use of the internet to raise small sums of money from large numbers of investors. Current US law allows organizations such as the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project to raise funds through crowdfunding but it doesn't allow them offer to offer equity (stock or ownership) to those who put up money. Nice. Sort of like Kickstarter with equity. The one million cap is a pittance. It will allow software startups to get going, but anything focusing on hardware (e.g., LENR prototype development) is going to burn through amount quickly. Having the SEC closely involved is also a possible damper. It's one thing to log into Kickstarter, create an account and start a campaign. It's another to apply to a federal bureaucracy, submit documentation and obtain permission (assuming permission is needed). Also, venture capital would laugh at finance on this scale. They generally want something that they can really put a lot of money behind, and something that will potentially have a huge ROI -- think of the 19B acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook. I'm pretty sure there are some happy VCs involved in that purchase, who will take away a disproportionate part of the money as a reward for their hard work, risk-taking, shrewd insights and brilliant advice. But even with a teansy cap of one million, this amount is enough for a software startup to bootstrap its way to profitability, possibly cutting VCs out of the loop entirely and allowing the employees to retain full equity throughout the life of the business. Even though something like Kickstarter with equity feels like it could be a positive development overall for LENR, despite the tiny cap, I'm also wary of a thousand LENR scams blooming. Although venture capital and angel investors could potentially be hoodwinked by a dishonest or self-deceptive player, they're on their guard and are generally willing to do some due diligence. I think there is much less of an impulse to do due diligence among LENR watchers more generally, so there could end up being a lot of money thrown away
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Hello Jones: There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World. Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon Technologies Posted on February 28, 2014 by adminhttp://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/* 30 Commentshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/carbon-nanotube-energy-new-patent-filed-by-seldon-technologies/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/11a8412d31aba3bdeb31cf1479f2481c/ Here's something that just came to my attention, and I haven't really had time to investigate it thoroughly, so I thought I'd put it up here for information and comment. It's a patent filed by Seldon Technologies, a Vermont company which works mainly in the field of water purification, and use carbon nanotubes in their filtration systems to make a product they call Nanomesh. Seldon seems to be branching out in their research and development endeavors, however, and have filed a patenthttps://www.google.com/patents/US20130266106?dq=ininventor:%22James+F.+Loan%22hl=ensa=Xei=0bMOU4nIJMyGogT-1YLoAgved=0CDUQ6AEwAAwhich deals with energy production titled Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof. The patent was published on October 10 2013. The abstract reads: There is disclosed a method of generating energetic particles, which comprises contacting nanotubes with a source of hydrogen isotopes, such as D2O, and applying activation energy to the nanotubes. In one embodiment, the hydrogen isotopes comprises protium, deuterium, tritium, and combinations thereof. There is also disclosed a method of transmuting matter that is based on the increased likelihood of nuclei interaction for atoms confined in the limited dimensions of a nanotube structure, which generates energetic particles sufficient to transmute matter and exposing matter to be transmuted to these particles. I can't find any reference to any product under development out there, but the application mentions some experiments done with carbon nanotubes in which neutron production 'above background levels' was measured. For example, in one experiment, a carbon nanotube electrode was submerged in a bath of deuterium, and after a voltage was passed through it, neutron bursts were recorded. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new-type-electronic-device *From:* Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones *From:* Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google.
[Vo]:Big step for next-generation fuel cells and electrolyzers
Big step for next-generation fuel cells and electrolyzers Date: February 27, 2014 Source: DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Summary: Researchers have discovered a highly promising new class of nanocatalysts for fuel cells and water-alkali electrolyzers that are an order of magnitude higher in activity than the target set by the US Department Of Energy for 2017. Share This -- - Email to a friend - Facebook - Twitter - Google+ - Print this page - More options -- These schematic illustrations and corresponding transmission electron microscope images show the evolution of platinum/nickel from polyhedra to dodecahedron nanoframes with platinum-enriched skin. *Credit: Image courtesy of DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory* [Click to enlarge image] A big step in the development of next-generation fuel cells and water-alkali electrolyzers has been achieved with the discovery of a new class of bimetallic nanocatalysts that are an order of magnitude higher in activity than the target set by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for 2017. The new catalysts, hollow polyhedral nanoframes of platinum and nickel, feature a three-dimensional catalytic surface activity that makes them significantly more efficient and far less expensive than the best platinum catalysts used in today's fuel cells and alkaline electrolyzers. This research was a collaborative effort between DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). We report the synthesis of a highly active and durable class of electrocatalysts by exploiting the structural evolution of platinum/nickel bimetallic nanocrystals, says Peidong Yang, a chemist with Berkeley Lab's Materials Sciences Division, who led the discovery of these new catalysts. Our catalysts feature a unique hollow nanoframe structure with three-dimensional platinum-rich surfaces accessible for catalytic reactions. By greatly reducing the amount of platinum needed for oxygen reduction and hydrogen evolution reactions, our new class of nanocatalysts should lead to the design of next-generation catalysts with greatly reduced cost but significantly enhanced activities. Yang, who also holds appointments with the University of California (UC) Berkeley and the Kavli Energy NanoSciences Institute at Berkeley, is one of the corresponding authors of a paper in *Science *that describes this research. The paper is titled Highly Crystalline Multimetallic Nanoframes with Three-Dimensional Electrocatalytic Surfaces. The other corresponding author is Vojislav Stamenkovic, a chemist with ANL's Materials Science Division, who led the testing of this new class of electrocatalysts. Fuel cells and electrolyzers can help meet the ever-increasing demands for electrical power while substantially reducing the emission of carbon and other atmospheric pollutants. These technologies are based on either the oxygen reduction reaction (fuel cells), or the hydrogen evolution reaction (electrolyzers). Currently, the best electrocatalyst for both reactions consists of platinum nanoparticles dispersed on carbon. Though quite effective, the high cost and limited availability of platinum makes large-scale use of this approach a major challenge for both stationary and portable electrochemical applications. Intense research efforts have been focused on developing high-performance electrocatalysts with minimal precious metal content and cost, Yang says. In an earlier study, the ANL scientists showed that forming a nano-segregated platinum skin over a bulk single-crystal platinum/nickel alloy enhances catalytic activity but the materials cannot be easily integrated into electrochemical devices. We needed to be able to reproduce the outstanding catalytic performance of these materials in nanoparticulates that offered high surface areas. Yang and his colleagues at Berkeley accomplished this by transforming solid polyhedral bimetallic nanoparticles of platinum and nickel into hollow nanoframes. The solid polyhedral nanoparticles are synthesized in the reagent oleylamine, then soaked in a solvent, such as hexane or chloroform, for either two weeks at room temperature, or for 12 hours at 120 degrees Celsius. The solvent, with its dissolved oxygen, causes a natural interior erosion to take place that results in a hollow dodecahedron nanoframe. Annealing these dodecahedron nanoframes in argon gas creates a platinum skin on the nanoframe surfaces. In contrast to other synthesis procedures for hollow nanostructures that involve corrosion induced by harsh oxidizing agents or applied potential, our method proceeds spontaneously in air, Yang says. The open structure of our platinum/nickel nanoframes addresses some of the major design criteria for advanced nanoscale electrocatalysts, including, high surface-to-volume ratio, 3-D surface molecular accessibility, and significantly reduced precious
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about cracks the NAE? On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes
[Vo]:Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion
*Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3128874/posts *Cold Fusion Now.org ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://coldfusionnow.org/investing-in-lenr-cold-fusion/ * | March 2, 2014 | Simon Templar http://coldfusionnow.org/investing-in-lenr-cold-fusion/ Posted on *Sun 02 Mar 2014 07:40:01 PM PST* by *Kevmo *http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion With the LENR/Cold Fusion field advancing every day smart money is watching carefully. There will be countless opportunities to benefit from this revolutionary technology. Here are a few ways to invest: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (TYO:7011) has been investigating LENR for a long time. Their recent presentation at ICCF-18 showed concept LENR system which would generate heat by transmutatating elements, including nuclear wastes and co-producing heat. Recently, they were granted an international patent for this work. MHI's involvement in the traditional nuclear industry and their involvement with industrial power equipment puts them in an excellent position to develop large scale reactors. Their investigation of exotic turbines and nuclear based technology could be easily applied to LENR. Even with their strategic position and intense LENR involvement they are a large company, the stock price may not be influenced in the short term, this would be a good long term investment. Toyota (NYSE:TM) has had its eye on LENR from day 1. Technova, a Toyota affiliated lab, actually hired Fleischmann and Pons and essentially gave them a new life in France away from the media circuis in the US. They were hired for a secret research program in LENR, continuing their work in private. While they may have not created a commercially relevant reactor system, they did spark the interest of Toyota, whos work in LENR continues to this day. Recently Toyota replicated a key experiment of Mitsubishi, showing the massive opportunities in LENR energy as well as LENR transmutation. Toyota is a huge company and would be best for a long term invesment. STMicroelectronics (NYSE:STM) is worth mentioning because they are a publically traded company interested in LENR. One of their scientists has been collaborating with Celani, attempting replications. They have a patent application for a LENR device, more specifically a control system for a LENR device. It does not seem likely that STM actually has any LENR devices other than a celanie replication. The patent seems to be very forward looking and specific and it is yet to be determined if it will hold any value if it is granted. STMicroelectronics is a huge company with a questionable foothold in LENR, this may be a stable long term investment. National Instruments (NASDAQ:NATI) has a serious interest in LENR from the highest levels. The president Dr. Truchard, gave the keynote speach at ICCF-18, voicing his support for the researchers in this field. NI has been known to sponsor LENR research groups by donating high dollar data aquistion systems and other equipment. It is rumored that NI has been collaborating with Andrea Rossi and has helped design the control and monitoring systems for the systems based on arrays of smaller units. NI week 2012 had a large LENR presence with very open endorsement of the technology, many LENR researchers and advocates were present. NI week 2013 was focused on smart grid technology and had less of a LENR presence, although Dennis Cravens provided a very intuitive public demonstration of LENR excess heat. Regardless, NI is a large company and initial media frenzy of LENR should not drive up the price excessivly. This is a very safe medium to long term investment. Cyclone Power Technologies (CYPW:OTC) is a small company which researches and produces engines operating from thermal energy. CYPW is a penny stock listed on OTC:Pink stock exchange, the wild west of the stock world. The stock price is currently at an all time low due to delays in the R+D process. Regardless, they are looking toward LENR technologies, even adding Dr. Kim from Purdue to their consulting board. Dr. Kim is heavily affiliated with Defkalion and even with his academic background he is very entrepreneurial, there is no doubt he will do all he can to combine dekflaion LENR technology and CYPW's engines. Due to the low volume and price, as well as the highly speculative nature of penny stocks, CYPW is expected to explode during widespread LENR media attention. This is an ideal short term investment. Nickel/Palladium Nickel and Palladium come to mind when thinking of long term cold fusion investments. Unfortunately, nickel is the most abundant material in the earths crust, a change in the demand of nickel would not affect the price drastically. Compared with Nickel, Palladium has a much higher hydrogen reactivity and much lower Debye temperature, allowing for palladium based LENR systems to be triggered at lower temperatures. Even if commercial LENR systems use Nickel/Hydrogen,
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Sure sounds like a Luttinger Liquid to me. But in this case, rather than the liquid forming out of gas state, it is a solid forming out of liquid state. Either way, it points to a large, localized, single-file effect of lower-than-anticipated temperature. Such a state favors the formation of a BEC. What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. One big problem with any BEC theory is that One experimental fact is that the observed reaction rate generally increases with temperature. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory So maybe the BEC formation is just the initiator of some 2nd stage, more coherent LENR reaction. Evidence for this would be: When Celani measured Gamma rays at Rossi's demo, it only occurred during the startup phase. Also, the same thing seems to be happening at MFMP, it seems to only happen during startup. My proposal for how this happens is that H1 monoatomic gas is adsorbed into the lattice and recombines into H2 gas, and this is an endothermic reaction. That is what sets up temperatures cold enough for the formation of a BEC or V1DLLBEC. My instinct tells me that the 2nd stage LENR reaction is Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) because it is by far the most abundantly occurring fusion in nature. Basically, we set up the conditions where fusion occurred with a BEC, and then once the physical system sees fusion occurring, Nature wants to see RPF taking place. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.1328.pdf Quote: The behavior of water inside the smallest (6,6) CNT notably differs from that in larger tubes. Below the phase transition temperature water confined within the (6,6) CNT forms an ice-like single file structure. END Apparently as much as 250K difference can be seen in the small diameter tubes indicating a QM effect.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
During the inflationary period of the universe, which was the first few microseconds, the entire space-time continuum is proposed to have expanded faster than the speed of light. Somehow this isn't viewed as a violation of C being a constant. In my mind, it is easier to view the speed of light as a rapidly decaying function with Mass always being held travelling below C, rather than the whole universe travelling faster than C because Mass wasn't really Mass quite yet. C would look an awful lot like a constant 14 billion years later. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Axil: Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but not the actual paper. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
I'm not sure this is what you're getting at, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication Birgit Dopfer's experiment Although such communication is prohibited in the thought experiment described above, some argue that superluminal communication could be achieved via quantum entanglement using other methods that don't rely on cloning a quantum system. One suggested method would use an ensemble of entangled particles to transmit information,[3] similar to a type of quantum eraser experiments.[4][5][6] Birgit Dopfer, a student of Anton Zeilinger's, has performed an experiment which seems to make possible superluminar communication through an unexpected collective behaviour of two beams of entangled photons, one of which passes through a double-slit, utilising the creation of a distance interference pattern as bit 0 and the lack of a distance interference pattern as bit 1 (or vice versa), without any other classical channel.[4][7] Since it is a collective and probabilistic phenomenon, no quantum information about the single particles is cloned and, accordingly, the no cloning theorem remains inviolate. Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to replicate Dopfer's experiment and demonstrate whether or not it can produce superluminal communication.[8][9][10][11] On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:51 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the postulates of relativity theory?
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. ***Isn't Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) Gamma free? It's the most common fusion event in our solar system. I thought you were the one bringing it up every so often as a plausible theory... On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Eric Walker This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by facts, logic or common sense. Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion. Sorry to have made this blanket statement in regard to your prior post specifically, Eric, since it is a generic criticism to many of the posts on Vortex and not personal - but... No, it's not opinion when 100% of the available proof is on your side. It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. Since 1989, there have been assertions and claims, but they are only assertions, that LENR is proof of a gammaless nuclear reaction, but that is circular logic. LENR is proof of a thermal anomaly, and helium is seen in the ash, but that is all that can be said logically. Even if helium is seen in proportion to the excess heat, which is in dispute, that does not raise LENR to the level of a known fusion reaction which is gammaless, at least not so long as there are other valid explanations. To be raised to this level the claimant must also demonstrate in an experiment not involving LENR that 24 MeV gammas can be completely suppressed by any mechanism. Any mechanism will suffice. This has not been done, even with 1 MeV gammas since there is always leakage - even with lead shielding. By definition, cold fusion cannot be the same known reaction as deuterium fusion to helium, which was known prior to 1989 - if it is gammaless - unless and until it can be shown that there is a real physical mechanism for not only for suppressing gammas, but for suppressing 100% of them without exception. How is that opinion? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
pulled thread, migration to new thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/posts?page=121#121 To: *Toddsterpatriot* We do know that Rossi refused a request to put meters on ALL electrical wires running to his contraption. In fact he was offered a million dollars to do so and still refused. 121 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/posts?page=121#121posted on *Wed 05 Mar 2014 06:44:52 PM PST* by TexasGatorhttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etexasgator/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/reply?c=121 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=2905533.121;reftype=comment| To 102 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/posts?page=118#102 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/replies?c=121 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/abuse?c=121] ***I'm posting this stuff here so I can speak my mind and not get the thread pulled. That is complete BullSHIT. The skeptopaths continually twist the facts and lie about what happened in order to induce responses, then they slowly put in personal insults and flamebait, tag-team troll in order to pollute the thread, and generally act like a bunch of assholes. My response is that This isn't a f**king Rossi thread. They do this all the time. Rossi rossi rossi. So they can pollute the thread. They're anti LENR, Anti-science Luddites and will not own up to it. They get away with this behavior because the mods are one sided. Rossi didn't refuse the request to put meters on anything. He was offered money by Dick Smith and it wasn't worth Rossi's time. Smith kept changing the parameters because he realized that Rossi COULD deliver.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
pulled thread, migration to new thread. -- To: *Kevmo* *Point out where the admin mod said that. * I don't need a mod to know that real conservatives aren't whiners. 122 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/posts?page=122#122posted on *Wed 05 Mar 2014 06:54:08 PM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/reply?c=122 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=2905533.122;reftype=comment| To 117 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/posts?page=121#117 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/replies?c=122 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2905533/abuse?c=122] ***This is a reasonable example of the standard flamebait that they are allowed to throw, without repercussion from the mods. Calling someone a whiner is name calling. And the guy was PROVEN wrong, it's just his own opinon contrasted with the posted opinion of the mods. So that is a good example of where they proceed forward on their own trolling quest of vigilante censorship even though they've been proven wrong, what they're doing doesn't match up with the forum's posted guidelines, goes against the forum mod's direct statement, includes flamebait and basically this: They know they can be assholes and get away with it. They get to pour seagull poop all across LENR threads and if we respond in kind (which in the past was quite effective), the mods tell us to stop calling them seagulls but it's perfectly okay for these assholes to accuse me of fraud or a scam. It's pure, one-sided bullshit.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
BULLSHIT!!!
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Jones: I gather I don't really understand what you're getting at. My responses are designated by 4 embedded asterisks. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. ***Isn't Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) Gamma free? It's the most common fusion event in our solar system. I thought you were the one bringing it up every so often as a plausible theory... Cough... cough. Yes and Yes and Yes. But there is a timely caveat. ... is reversible fusion really fusion when the fusion bond lasts for only a few femtoseconds? My impression is that this is enough for the Sun to generate photons, Helium, and other stuff. Now, maybe that's only because it is so huge compared to the earth, but it is also gaseous, where we're dealing with condensed matter. Can we not agree that there is a fundamental difference between fusion which is permanent and fusion which is transitory? ***Perhaps that fundamental difference is between gaseous state and solid state... or even the proposed 5th state of matter: BECs. Basically, this is your main statement that I do not understand. Therefore RPF is not really heavy-duty fusion-fusion, only FINO fusion (fusion in name only). That is my answer and I'm sticking to it... ***Perhaps RPF is nature's way of desperately seeking equilibrium. Once fusion has taken place, it wrestles with the outcome until the atoms are in their most restful state, which could even be partial hydrogen...
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS Figure 1, Page 5 I don't buy it that LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. The enclosed SEM image implies the microexplosion happened well under the surface, more like a volcano than a surface explosion. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example,
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Axil, that's nonsense. A child can see that's a volcano. The reaction came from inside the substrate. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface od the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS Figure 1, Page 5 I don't buy it that LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. The enclosed SEM image implies the microexplosion happened well under the surface, more like a volcano than a surface explosion. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example,
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I need a better term than skeptopath. . How about Aggressively Skeptical 'Humans' Obfuscating Lenr Endeavors (ASHOLEs)? On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: *tacticalogic* *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?* Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment| To 31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion.* Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment| To 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33] -- To: *tacticalogic* *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it.* Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The honest skeptics do. 34 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=34#34posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=34| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.34;reftype=comment| To 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#33 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=34 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=34] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* I've looked at LENR-CANR.org. It's interesting research, but I can't find any research that's actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. 35 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=35#35posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=35| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.35;reftype=comment
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Pulled Threads. Unfortunately, many of them were pulled from FR and my efforts to save them using Ubuntu software led to a debacle. --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/3088346/posts The thread wasn't generating invective, it's not pulled from a website with copyright issues, it was an open-source science effort rather than a Rossi thing. - Original message by citizen regarding E-Cat article received 08/19/2013 4:31:56 PM PDT Kevmo, I didn't find where you had posted this E-cat article I ran across. Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html#jCp http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3027677/posts?page=32 Looks like I saved this one in sent email. - Tests find E-Cat has energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3023012/posts The mod even said that one reason the thread was pulled was because I called them Luddites, which he considered even more insulting than seagull. But when I looked through the thread in my cache, I had never used the term. The mod INVENTED the instance. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2970866/posts?page=47 Conclusively Demonstrating the New Energy Effect of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Now.Org ^ | November 25, 2012 | David J. French Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:38:47 PM by Kevmo Conclusively Demonstrating the New Energy Effect of Cold Fusion November 25, 2012 / David J. French/6 comment(s)/Science and Technology [Translate] -- The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest and other matters touching on the field of Cold Fusion. -- I saved this one in sent email Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron ECat World ^ | July 28, 2012 | Frank Acland Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 11:11:01 AM by Kevmo Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron High School kids who have replicated a cold fusion cell. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/athanor-2-0-the-hydrotron/ - A couple of the original pulled comments were me telling Moonboy, stop stalking me, @$$#0|e Skip to comments. Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron ECat World ^ | July 28, 2012 | Frank Acland Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 11:11:01 AM by Kevmo Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron High School kids who have replicated a cold fusion cell. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/athanor-2-0-the-hydrotron/ [Update: Video Posted] --
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Solar nuclear reactions - was Christopher H. Cooper
Jones: i really appreciate your response. Alas, I do not understand most of it. surprisingly it has not been studied extensively, ***That does not surprise me. On the sun, however, there can be an extremely rare beta decay of the 2He nucleus during its femtosecond of its lifetime - where there is a decay to deuterium instead of the reversal back to 2 protons. That is the start of the solar fusion cycle. When transposed to LENR, ***What I take this to mean is that we know certain things about one science fact, so we project it onto another similar system. So, we know some of the solar fusion cycle, and we project that learning onto LENR. That's probably because all these hot fusion boys haven't bothered to look at how things might actually behave differently in condensed matter as opposed to high gravity plasma. instead energy is derived from spin via the Lamb shift, which is fueled by QCD color charge during the brief instant of binding. Mass of the proton is converted to energy. The average proton can give up about 7 parts per million of its pion mass and retain its identity. Essentially this is the method whereby the Lamb Shift asymmetry can produce small packets of energy sequentially. ***Not that this helps much, but I do not understand this entire paragraph. Starting with QCD, color change, pion mass/retain identity, lamb shift asymmetry, sequential packets of energy. BEC is only involved to the degree that the 2He nucleus, for its femtosecond of lifetime ***Perhaps in Condensed Matter, this time frame is extended? is one of nature's simplest bosons. It is a short term violator of Pauli exclusion because the boson configuration is favored. ***There are many theories of LENR. Most of them suggest that within a condensed matter lattice, some of the previous observations of gaseous fusion are no longer valid. It seems to come up, time and again, that the Pauli exclusion principle is one of those observations which doesn't hold up within condensed matter physics. What do you think? On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley ... is reversible fusion really fusion when the fusion bond lasts for only a few femtoseconds? My impression is that this is enough for the Sun to generate photons, Helium, and other stuff. Now, maybe that's only because it is so huge compared to the earth, but it is also gaseous, where we're dealing with condensed matter. Kevin, the detail you may be missing in the solar energy cycle is an important step that only begins with RPF (the diproton reaction) and ends with helium thousands of years later. It is extremely slow. RPF itself is not known to produce significant energy in the Sun, but surprisingly it has not been studied extensively, since it works in a strong gravity field. In fact the diproton reaction could be slightly gainful on the sun and it would never have been noticed. In some forms of LENR there is a substitute gravity field provided by lattice confinement. The slight gain from spin realignment in two protons is called the Lamb shift. This is what is suspected to provide the gain in this form of LENR and it would derive from a reversible fusion reaction. On the sun, however, there can be an extremely rare beta decay of the 2He nucleus during its femtosecond of its lifetime - where there is a decay to deuterium instead of the reversal back to 2 protons. That is the start of the solar fusion cycle. When transposed to LENR, this same reaction seldom goes into beta decay but instead energy is derived from spin via the Lamb shift, which is fueled by QCD color charge during the brief instant of binding. Mass of the proton is converted to energy. The average proton can give up about 7 parts per million of its pion mass and retain its identity. Essentially this is the method whereby the Lamb Shift asymmetry can produce small packets of energy sequentially. Can we not agree that there is a fundamental difference between fusion which is permanent and fusion which is transitory? ***Perhaps that fundamental difference is between gaseous state and solid state... or even the proposed 5th state of matter: BECs. Basically, this is your main statement that I do not understand. The mass which is converted to energy in RPF is bosonic, but a BEC is only involved to the degree that the 2He nucleus, for its femtosecond of lifetime is one of nature's simplest bosons. It is a short term violator of Pauli exclusion because the boson configuration is favored. But the energy released in LENR would happen shortly after the nucleus returns to its identity as two protons, which then experience para - ortho Lamb shift in the lattice as they renormalize. The Lamb shift is usually not considered relevant to LENR since the energy value per instance is very low. I do not think that many theorists have reasoned that a ringing-Lamb-shift which
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
The important message therefore is this: LENR is passing the fractal test - we live in a fractal universe, where a pattern at one scale, repeats at larger and smaller scales. Without that symmetry, the universe would break down, and LENR does not let us down here Gordon Docherty http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/the-earthquake-lightning-mystery-lenr-connection/ On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348 LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Oh geez, here come the assholes again, jumping on their AssholeBandwagon. Typical of anti-science Luddites, they use tag team trolling techniques in their attempts at vigilante censorship.
Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not understand experimental science. Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as the LENR community. It would be more accurate to call them every major academic electrochemist on earth. That puts it in a different perspective. The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt. People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any opinion about it. A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with no meaning or pattern: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but he sees only random noise. Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would guess that 95
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Tag Team Trolling is a form of vigilante censorship. They respond to each other's comments with inane criticisms that have zero, nothing, nada to do with the science behind the claims. The purpose of such comments is flamebait so that there is a response leading to the pulling of the thread since the moderation is one sided. It is also that, since they know little else about the science and their intention is to act like seagulls, they deliver seagull shit all over the LENR thread so that some lurker who visits the thread will be forewarned that they will be flamed if they voice any kind of scientific or positive opinion. They are simply acting like assholes, and the standard response of ignoring trolls does not work because they are a GANG of trolls. http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html *The trolls are winning. Pick a story about some aspect of science, any story, scroll down to the blog comments and let the bashing begin. * Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study? I think you can take all these studies by pointy headed scientists, 99 percent of whom are socialists and communists, and stick them where the sun don't shine. Yawn. Climate change myth wackos at it again. This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola. Speaking of dolts, if you were around in the 70s, when they also had scientists, the big talk then was about the coming ice age. And don't give me any of that carbon emission bull@!$%#. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html#jCp Such nasty back and forth, like it or not, is now a staple of our news diet, and in the realm of online science news, the diatribes, screeds and rants are taking a toll on the public perception of science and technology, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. UW-Madison science communication researcher Dominique Brossard /br study showing the tone of blog comments alone can influence the perception of risk posed by nanotechnology, the science of manipulating materials at the smallest scales. The study, now in press at the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, was supported by the National Science Foundation. It sampled a representative cross section of 2,338 Americans in an online experiment, where the civility of blog comments was manipulated. For example, introducing name calling into commentary tacked onto an otherwise balanced newspaper blog post, the study showed, could elicit either lower or higher perceptions of risk, depending on one's predisposition to the science of nanotechnology. It seems we don't really have a clear social norm about what is expected online, says Brossard, a UW-Madison professor of Life Science Communication, contrasting online forums with public meetings where prescribed decorum helps keep discussion civil. In the case of blog postings, it's the Wild West. For rapidly developing nanotechnology, a technology already built into more than 1,300 consumer products, exposure to uncivil online comments is one of several variables that can directly influence the perception of risk associated with it. When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to science to form a judgment, explains Ashley Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and the lead author of the upcoming study in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes. Blogs have been a part of the new media landscape for quite some time now, but our study is the first to look at the potential effects blog comments have on public perceptions of science, says Brossard. While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation, she explains. UW-Madison Life Sciences Communication Professor Dietram Scheufele, another of the study's co-authors, notes that the Web is a primary destination for people looking for detailed information and discussion on aspects of science and technology. Because of that trend, studies of online media are becoming increasingly important, but understanding the online information environment is particularly important for issues of science and technology. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html#jCp On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Oh geez, here come the assholes again, jumping on their AssholeBandwagon. Typical of anti-science Luddites, they use tag team trolling techniques in their attempts at vigilante censorship.
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Vigilante Censorship This is an excellent exchange showing such methodology in action. Note the crickets at the end of the thread. Typical of those who have nothing useful and honest to say. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2989565/posts?page=47#47
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Jed: You say that he effect has been replicated hundreds of times. Where can a skeptic go to check on these replications? As far as I can tell, when Ed ran 92 experiments and got 4 cathodes to work, he replicated the PFAHE 4 times. I recently saw some reference to 50 cathodes, which was about half the ones originally tested. That would be 50 more times replicated, by 1 researcher. On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... That's not good. Try again. I will upload a new copy. This question is nebulous, even somewhat meaningless, because it is hard to count experiments. When Bockris ran a 10 x 10 array of cathodes, was that 1 test or 100? Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is. The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real. That's all there is to it. - Jed
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not understand experimental science. Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as the LENR community. It would be more accurate to call them every major academic electrochemist on earth. That puts it in a different perspective. The problem with skeptics
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Ed: I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read a LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you will find the data set on which this paper was based. Ed Storms On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf This file is corrupted. At least for me... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been successfully replicated. Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been published. He then goes on to look at 386 of them. http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf Here there are 291 replications mentioned. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Storms cites 1060 positive result studies in his book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthescience.pdf On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been successfully replicated. Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been published. He then goes on to look at 386 of them. http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that correlate excess heat. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf Page 71 The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond Reasonable Doubt Dennis Cravens 1 and Dennis Letts 2 1 Amridge University Box 1317 Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA 2 12015 Ladrido Lane Austin, TX 78727 USA Abstract One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted to a CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a real physical effect beyond a reasonable doubt. On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been replicated? Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE). http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion --- Jed Rothwell says: Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has been replicated hundreds of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4 -- JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com . Jing-tang He * Nuclear fusion inside condense matters * Frontiers of Physics in China -- National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find. An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H. http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf Conclusion * THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better measurements and control tools. -- http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf Here there are 291 replications mentioned. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Then it is easy to see how someone like JT He who reviewed the evidence could come up with 14000 replications. Let's say that, using Ed's figure of 1060 reports, that an average of 14 cells were successful for each experiment. That would get you the 14000 figure very quickly. And I've seen indications that some of these guys were getting more than a hundred cells to work. On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been successfully replicated. Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been published. He then goes on to look at 386 of them. http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf Let me point out that this is 386 reports, or laboratories reporting. There are many more individual experimental runs than this. This paper references Storms' book, and the tables in it. It has a list, Reported successful FPE experiments which begins: Excess Heat, Table 2, pages 53-61, Number of Successes 184 Tritium Production Table 6, pages 79-81, Number of Successes 61 . . . In the book, the first thing listed in Table 2 is: Dardik et al. DW Iso. open electrolytic Pd, LiOD+, D2O, 1.8 Dardik has done hundreds of positive experiments by now. So have some of the other groups in the list of 184 positive excess heat experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Excellent essay, Jed. All of us vorts should log in and rate it, give it a leg up. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31422 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed: I liked your essay so much that I submitted my own. Basically a rehash of the LENR X Prize Proposal. I don't write as well as you, so you will likely have a much higher chance of winning. best regards Kevin O On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, they have failed. That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories. \\\ On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
I don't see it eiither On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 Is it just me, or have other people lost it?
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
It's back up. Probably just a glitch. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see it eiither On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: My essay seems to have disappeared. I do not find it at this link: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 Is it just me, or have other people lost it?
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
You probably caused too much excitement for their servers to handle. Your article is far better than the others. There are some goofy thinkers. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It is back to normal. It was a temporary glitch. They sent me a note saying oops, sorry. Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: It's there and leaving the competition behind! That's thanks to my clique. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
You're featured at Cold Fusion Now http://coldfusionnow.org/read-and-rate-cold-fusion-may-have-revolutionary-potential-by-jed-rothwell/ On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It is back to normal. It was a temporary glitch. They sent me a note saying oops, sorry. Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: It's there and leaving the competition behind! That's thanks to my clique. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Jones: It is compelling that the protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion reaction in the universe. I consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory: Simplest is best. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- ... he [Admiral Steidle] could be referring to something else instead of LENR and ... it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind of nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously - what would that be? OK. Let me clarify that rhetorical question, since the Admiral did mention nuclear but not LENR per se, and there is a third or hybrid possibility. Actually there is a fourth possibility too. For two decades there has been the question of a hybrid of LENR and hot fusion, which could mean something like LENR with uranium or thorium. There are papers on the LENR-CANR site relative to this with actual experiments. Curiously, the thorium version seems to be endothermic. Presumably much of the interior heat of Earth could be provided this way a hybrid LENR reaction with a heavy metal - assuming that there is neutron-less fission which could happen with a non-fissile isotope (U-238) via LENR and a proton which looks like a neutron (virtual neutron). This is old hat. As fate would have it, this concept turned up on Rossi's blog yesterday... under the guise of the a putative new physics called tresino physics. LOL. But to cut through the crap, this is little more a blatant theft of Randell Mills theory and is twenty years old. Exactly like Mills' hydrino hydride (tm) - the so-called tresino has a net negative charge and is quite small (thousands of time smaller than the hydrogen atom by volume). On vortex, we have been calling this species f/H or fractional hydrogen, since Mills has trademarked the name hydrino. Other names are dense hydrogen, DDL hydrogen, IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) hydrogen clusters etc. The ion may be stable or not, depending on which theory is employed since it is not proved. The ion would stable as a negatively charged ion under Mills theory. It could possibly interact with a heavy metal but the more interesting thing, by far, is the 3 proton reaction. P+(f/H-)+P = ? ANSWER: A version of the trihydrogen cation is the result and it is far from rare. This species is also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. On Earth it seems to be rare, but possibly not in condensed matter. H3+ is stable in the interstellar medium, which is a place that anions are not as stable as cations - due to the low temperature and low density of interstellar space. In condensed matter it would be stable due to lots of valence electrons spreading and hiding the net positive charge. The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the Interstellar Medium is unparalleled by any other molecular ion. Wiki quote. In short, for LENR - using the H2- anion as Mills claims is possible, but this cation could be the real basis of the reversible fusion reaction, which has been promoted here by me in the past as RPF - the diproton reaction. But instead of that particular diproton route, the molecular isomer H3+ would proceed with higher probability in condensed matter (most likely). It would still be RPF with the consecutive Lamb Shift energy anomaly, happening at THz frequencies, but the cation never splits apart - it just hums along, dumping excess proton mass. This continues until that mass is converted to energy (7 parts per million of extra mass or ~7keV per proton). Jones
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities. ***Then you should probably alert them, to keep your effort above the noise of suspicion. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: You're featured at Cold Fusion Now http://coldfusionnow.org/read-and-rate-cold-fusion-may-have-revolutionary-potential-by-jed-rothwell/ Another clique! This appears to be against the rules: FQXi expects those providing community evaluations to do so based solely on the quality of the essay assessed. Voting collusion or bartering, mass down-voting, and other such forms of 'voter fraud' will not be tolerated, and participants in such will have (all) their votes discarded or in extreme cases their essays disqualified. Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory? First stage, the 1DLEC. As previously discussed. https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html 2nd stage, RPF The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets triggered. RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even if it means shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen. This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the universe has been initiated. It explains why there's gamma rays during startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC creating) process, but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no gammas. Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model Olivier Lenoblehttp://www.researchgate.net/researcher/81855005_Olivier_Lenoble/, Valentin Zagrebnovhttp://www.researchgate.net/researcher/9902523_Valentin_Zagrebnov/ 05/2006; Source: arXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0604068 *ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation in the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in this one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson random potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single largest interval of logarithmic size. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley It is compelling that the protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory: Simplest is best. You are an intelligent observer :-) The Wiki entry on trihydrogen has supporting details - but of course, does not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a fractional trihydrogen anion. In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons continually try to fuse but cannot. The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to supply excess energy without gamma radiation). Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para. Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower energy. In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. More on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks-Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Also perhaps here, this smart guy: *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011). *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� * On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
I think this paper might address the coupling term in the Hamiltonian you're asking about. http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/3777/1/dalmonte_marcello_tesi.pdf 1.1.1 Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem One of the main general results in 1D physics is related to the so called spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) mechanism[12, 13, 14]. In statistical mechanics and quantum field theory, when a certain ground state exhibits less symmetry than the related Hamiltonian, one says that a certain sym- metry has been broken: that’s the essence of SSB. While various interesting phenomena, such as the emergence of superconductivity, can be explained in these terms, the most intuitive view on the subject is usually associ- ated with the emergence of spontaneous magnetization in solids: given a certain ordered configuration C which minimizes the energy functional, an exactly opposite configuration C ′with the same energy always exists. Nonetheless, the state of the system is not invariant under transformation C↔C′, and thus this exchange symmetry is broken[13]. The curious point is, in low dimensional systems, SSB suffers from a no-go theorem known as the Mermin-Wagner(MW) theorem (or Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg(MWH) theorem). In their seminal paper [1 5], Mermin and Wagner showed that the Heisenberg model cannot display a finite magnetization m(h) at finite temperature in one and two dimension, and at zero temperature in one dimension, if the interac- tion coefficients are short-range... On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones said: In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap, potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect transitions. Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like? Any references you know of? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day From: Kevin O'Malley It is compelling that the protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory: Simplest is best. You are an intelligent observer :-) The Wiki entry on trihydrogen has supporting details - but of course, does not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a fractional trihydrogen anion. In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons continually try to fuse but cannot. The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to supply excess energy without gamma radiation). Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para. Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower energy. In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. More on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
And also perhaps here: Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it). That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on Vortex-L until I pointed it out. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77012.html http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2010/jul10/pinning-transition.html Pinning Transition from a Luttinger-liquid to an insulated phase Mott-insulator -- *Pinning atoms into order: In an international first, physicists of the University of Innsbruck, Austria have experimentally observed a quantum phenomenon, where an arbitrarily weak perturbation causes atoms to build an organized structure from an initially unorganized one. The scientific team headed by Hanns-Christoph Nägerl has published a paper about quantum phase transitions in a one dimensional quantum lattice in the scientific journal Nature.* With a Bose-Einstein condensate of cesium atoms, scientists at the Institute for Experimental Physics of the University of Innsbruck have created one dimensional structures in an optical lattice of laser light. In these quantum lattices or wires the single atoms are aligned next to each other with laser light preventing them from breaking ranks On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Also perhaps here, this smart guy: *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011). *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� * On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
What would be the testable predictions of your theory? What should we be looking for when someone tests a device and publishes data about it? On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
That sorta goes to my point about looking for experimental results that either lend support or reduce support for a particular theory. I'm noticing that a lot of the experiments are veering towards testing nuclear products, which is going to be expensive. It won't matter much if Rossi is selling reactors, it soon becomes someone else's problem to properly theorize how it's happening. But it will matter a bunch if Rossi stalls and we need to know what's going on in order to get to production. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You should take a look at the table 2 and table 3 element list from the DGT ICCF-17 document. http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-08-13-ICCF-17__Paper_DGTGx.pdf The is a large increase in very light elements and not much nickel to copper transmutation. This means that Cluster fusion of many nuclei including many protons and a heavy metal nucleus is occurring per fusion event. In the Rossi ash, iron was 10% of the element assay. *1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron.* Fusion cannot happen if the nucleon count is odd, e.g. Ni61. This indicates photofusion. Gamma Radiation is converted to huge magnetic fields and will result in EUV radiation from the eventual destruction of the EMF soliton that will be thermalized by election capture. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic hydrogen gas. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessorieshash=item58a6d66d0avxp=mtr about $40 with free shipping What is good about the arrangement Axil described is the company will custom manufacture converters with different metals. They are extremely friendly to this idea of providing Cat reactors to experimenters, and have a lot of options they can offer us, including integrating different nano-metals in various combinations (e.g. Palladium, Platinum, Nickel) . . . That is much better than using off-the-shelf catalytic converters. The hard part is knowing what metals you want. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
Not for sale in California. Well, that sucks... for me. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessorieshash=item58a6d66d0avxp=mtr about $40 with free shipping *From:* Axil Axil He'll make those available for $100, and shipping was only around $14 from Florida.
Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. ***Yup. Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion. The crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by the ignorant press) will credit science and will take this as a cue to further scientism. Even though it was scientists who fought so hard against the science of LENR. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase true believers properly. This is because the true true believers have captured the phrase true believers to refer to scientists. This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in religious and political circles. To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase true believers is more properly applied to folks often referred to as skeptopaths or, worse, skeptics, let please note that the mathematical model of belief in relation to theory and experiment is well understood: http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of what is known as a belief network -- in particular with relation to decision networks. Decision networks are how rational actors go about deciding what experiments to invest in. Note I said invest in rather than the more general perform. Investment must take into account the value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of the experiment. This is why decision theory is taught in places like Harvard business school: Business is largely about obtaining information and obtaining information has associated costs. If you can't treat those costs rationally you go out of business in short order. Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science targeting knowledge of potentially profound value. In belief networks, you have what is known as the Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution -- which amounts to the cumulative experience prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability of various outcomes based on various decisions. This Prior (as it is often abbreviated) is, simply, knowledge -- recognizing that all knowledge is tentative. The key word here is tentative. What does tentative mean in relation to knowledge? It means all of your theoretic understanding of the world is mere belief subject to further experience. The sin qua non of a true believer, then, is a person in whom knowledge prevents experience from modifying their Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution because they refuse to knowledge that all knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief. Such commitment to belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase true believer. If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new experience, then they are not true believers. So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory? Simple: The true believers focused on a belief in the _possibility_ Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their incompetence and/or delusion, to use the characterization now adopted as knowledge by the true believers. This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
Bob: Not even close. The story as told by Watson and Keyes is popular among New Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ageauthors and personal growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_growth gurus and has become an urban legend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend and part of New Age mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Kevin-- This is what is called the 100th monkey principle. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. ***Yup. Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion. The crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by the ignorant press) will credit science and will take this as a cue to further scientism. Even though it was scientists who fought so hard against the science of LENR. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase true believers properly. This is because the true true believers have captured the phrase true believers to refer to scientists. This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in religious and political circles. To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase true believers is more properly applied to folks often referred to as skeptopaths or, worse, skeptics, let please note that the mathematical model of belief in relation to theory and experiment is well understood: http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of what is known as a belief network -- in particular with relation to decision networks. Decision networks are how rational actors go about deciding what experiments to invest in. Note I said invest in rather than the more general perform. Investment must take into account the value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of the experiment. This is why decision theory is taught in places like Harvard business school: Business is largely about obtaining information and obtaining information has associated costs. If you can't treat those costs rationally you go out of business in short order. Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science targeting knowledge of potentially profound value. In belief networks, you have what is known as the Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution -- which amounts to the cumulative experience prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability of various outcomes based on various decisions. This Prior (as it is often abbreviated) is, simply, knowledge -- recognizing that all knowledge is tentative. The key word here is tentative. What does tentative mean in relation to knowledge? It means all of your theoretic understanding of the world is mere belief subject to further experience. The sin qua non of a true believer, then, is a person in whom knowledge prevents experience from modifying their Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution because they refuse to knowledge that all knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief. Such commitment to belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase true believer. If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new experience, then they are not true believers. So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory? Simple: The true believers focused on a belief in the _possibility_ Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their incompetence and/or delusion, to use the characterization now adopted as knowledge by the true believers. This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
Look what kind of trouble you caused -- Ed Storms just unsubscribed, on Vortex-L it shows up in this thread. What did you or any of us say that pissed him off? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Kevin-- This is what is called the 100th monkey principle. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. ***Yup. Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion. The crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by the ignorant press) will credit science and will take this as a cue to further scientism. Even though it was scientists who fought so hard against the science of LENR. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase true believers properly. This is because the true true believers have captured the phrase true believers to refer to scientists. This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in religious and political circles. To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase true believers is more properly applied to folks often referred to as skeptopaths or, worse, skeptics, let please note that the mathematical model of belief in relation to theory and experiment is well understood: http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of what is known as a belief network -- in particular with relation to decision networks. Decision networks are how rational actors go about deciding what experiments to invest in. Note I said invest in rather than the more general perform. Investment must take into account the value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of the experiment. This is why decision theory is taught in places like Harvard business school: Business is largely about obtaining information and obtaining information has associated costs. If you can't treat those costs rationally you go out of business in short order. Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science targeting knowledge of potentially profound value. In belief networks, you have what is known as the Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution -- which amounts to the cumulative experience prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability of various outcomes based on various decisions. This Prior (as it is often abbreviated) is, simply, knowledge -- recognizing that all knowledge is tentative. The key word here is tentative. What does tentative mean in relation to knowledge? It means all of your theoretic understanding of the world is mere belief subject to further experience. The sin qua non of a true believer, then, is a person in whom knowledge prevents experience from modifying their Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution because they refuse to knowledge that all knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief. Such commitment to belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase true believer. If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new experience, then they are not true believers. So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory? Simple: The true believers focused on a belief in the _possibility_ Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their incompetence and/or delusion, to use the characterization now adopted as knowledge by the true believers. This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a belief on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. ***Well, I'm sorry to see Ed go. I cannot agree with his assessment of the goal here, however. Speculation is offered towards trying to understand. When he says the goal here is not to understand, he's wrong. The goal is to understand. I hope he comes back. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed stated: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.- I would note Ed, that there are well documented* low energy* nuclear reactions that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take place or get over this barrier (your words) between the two deuterons. As long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin conservation principle is only about 75 years old. The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb barriers between such particles. Bob *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
Jones: Thanks for the informative heads up about spillover. What I would need is to know how much H1 monoatomic gas I'm feeding into the system. It would not have to be exact, it would just have to be within 3 to 5%. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic hydrogen gas. The nature of any spillover catalyst, and any CC is loaded with them, is to convert H2 into monatomic nuclei. It will not be a gas per se, but proton will attach to the catalyst. BTW - the California-legal CC costs more but is more active. You can get one for less than $100 on eBay.
[Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?
There are a few efforts that look like they might break out in 2015, whether it's Rossi or Brullion or Defkalion or whomever. All of them would need to convert heat to electricity. That means a Stirling engine, unless you believe the guys at Deuo Dynamics who have a direct thermoelectric conversion in their LENR diode. Which Stirling Engine is the best? Cyclone Power? They have Dr. Kim Infinia? bankrupt, sold Stirling stuff to qenergy.com Dean Kamen? The Segway inventor went silent on his Stirling patent www.stirlingengine.com/*kamen/dean*_*kamen*_patent.html Any others worth looking at? When LENR hits big, stirling cycle engines will have their day in the sun.
Re: [Vo]:BlackLight Power, Inc. Announces Sustained Production of Electricity Using Photovoltaic Conversion of the Millions of Watts of Brilliant Plasma Formed by the Reaction of Water to a More Stabl
Blacklight lost the limelight to Rossi. Now it remains to be seen if Rossi deserved the limelight. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote: Here we go, again: Well said! It is kind of hilarious. - Jed
Fwd: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
As noted in a previous article, Jed Rothwell entered into an essay contest for the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). I submitted my own Cold Fusion related essay, and didn't hear anything back from FQXi. Then Peter Gluck had his essay published, so I asked FQXi why mine was not published or declined. They say it is because of an objection being raised to the commercial content in it--specifically the promotion of techshop. Perhaps there is some other educational institution I could propose as a baseline minimum that would give people access to machine shop tools relatively quickly? thanks Kevin O -- Jed Rothwell's Essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 Peter Gluck's Essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015 - How Should Humanity Steer the Future? With The LENR Techshop Y Prize Incentive Proposal My proposal is to set up a prize similar to the X Prize to reward and encourage Techshop (http://techshop.ws/) teams who replicate the recent Cold Fusion experiment at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project wherein Gamma Rays were detected after an excess heat event. Let's call it the Y Prize. The Gamma Ray finding was replicated by Hans Biberian within 48 hours. Measuring Gamma Rays would be the smoking gun to prove that it is a nuclear process taking place within these cold fusion experiments. MFMP Report Detection of Unusual Gamma Rays [Updated: Biberian Replicates] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/11/mfmp-report-detection-of-unusual-gamma-rays/ - What is the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP)? In essence, they are a grassroots, open-source scientific group trying to replicate Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). It is named after Martin Fleischmann because he was one of the 2 original electrochemists who found this anomalous heat effect in 1989, and he passed away recently. His partner, Dr. Pons, is still alive and could therefore still win a Nobel Prize. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/ If one simply follows their latest recipe, a LENR device can be built and tested by anyone who has the means. They are currently using a wire that Dr. Celani, a prominent LENR researcher, gave to them in furtherance of their effort. They also plan to test a NANOR device which Dr. Hagelstein at Massachussetts Institute of Technology helped to develop. - Why Techshop? http://techshop.ws/ They are the right people to encourage for a grass roots energy effort; and the interest in a Y Prize would help that worthy organization grow; if they can do it, almost anyone can do it and the generated excitement would turn the world upside down. Bootstrapping Techshop would help many other people who would like to do some kind of experiment on physics or simply to be creative. From their website, http://techshop.ws/ TechShop is a vibrant, creative community that provides access to tools, software and space. You can make virtually anything at TechShop. Come and build your dreams! TechShop is a playground for creativity. Part fabrication and prototyping studio, part hackerspace and part learning center, TechShop provides access to over $1 million worth of professional equipment and software. We offer comprehensive instruction and expert staff to ensure you have a safe, meaningful and rewarding experience. Most importantly, at TechShop you can explore the world of making in a collaborative and creative environment. It is not known whether Techshop really has the equipment and resources to support this kind of an effort. However, the excitement generated towards such a replication effort would encourage Techshops around the country to acquire such equipment, working with National Instruments and others. For instance, Burt Rutan did not have the equipment to build devices that could go into space. But the Ansari X Prize spurred on his creative juices, bootstrapping his effort and focusing his vision. I been a fan of his since high school, when he independently came out with the VariEZ canard airplane. If an Italian High School Teacher (Hugo Abundo) could build a LENR device, then TechShop could. And I think National Instruments (NI) would help. NI has supported cold fusion research for years, offering LabView software free to all researchers in the field. Perhaps they are eager to sell their measurement devices into this market space the way Levi wanted to sell Jeans to miners in California in 1849 and Apple wanted to get kids hooked on computers at school. But it does not matter - they are eager to help.
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Well, it looks like my essay was finally approved as well. They just wanted me to remove the commercial content. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2024 KevinO On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Kevin, FQXI and its yearly contest have rather strict rules, inspired in part from the prize of the John Templeton Society. They ask for a more general answer not for authors coming with their pet subjects or ideas. In my essay I am also speaking about CF, actually Deeply Metamorphised Cold Fusion. I think we must accept than no bright theory will and no small scale lab experiment can trigger the rebirth of the field- just a working commercial process can save us. Peter On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: As noted in a previous article, Jed Rothwell entered into an essay contest for the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). I submitted my own Cold Fusion related essay, and didn't hear anything back from FQXi. Then Peter Gluck had his essay published, so I asked FQXi why mine was not published or declined. They say it is because of an objection being raised to the commercial content in it--specifically the promotion of techshop. Perhaps there is some other educational institution I could propose as a baseline minimum that would give people access to machine shop tools relatively quickly? thanks Kevin O -- Jed Rothwell's Essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 Peter Gluck's Essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015 - How Should Humanity Steer the Future? With The LENR Techshop Y Prize Incentive Proposal My proposal is to set up a prize similar to the X Prize to reward and encourage Techshop (http://techshop.ws/) teams who replicate the recent Cold Fusion experiment at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project wherein Gamma Rays were detected after an excess heat event. Let's call it the Y Prize. The Gamma Ray finding was replicated by Hans Biberian within 48 hours. Measuring Gamma Rays would be the smoking gun to prove that it is a nuclear process taking place within these cold fusion experiments. MFMP Report Detection of Unusual Gamma Rays [Updated: Biberian Replicates] http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/11/mfmp-report-detection-of-unusual-gamma-rays/ - What is the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP)? In essence, they are a grassroots, open-source scientific group trying to replicate Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). It is named after Martin Fleischmann because he was one of the 2 original electrochemists who found this anomalous heat effect in 1989, and he passed away recently. His partner, Dr. Pons, is still alive and could therefore still win a Nobel Prize. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/ If one simply follows their latest recipe, a LENR device can be built and tested by anyone who has the means. They are currently using a wire that Dr. Celani, a prominent LENR researcher, gave to them in furtherance of their effort. They also plan to test a NANOR device which Dr. Hagelstein at Massachussetts Institute of Technology helped to develop. - Why Techshop? http://techshop.ws/ They are the right people to encourage for a grass roots energy effort; and the interest in a Y Prize would help that worthy organization grow; if they can do it, almost anyone can do it and the generated excitement would turn the world upside down. Bootstrapping Techshop would help many other people who would like to do some kind of experiment on physics or simply to be creative. From their website, http://techshop.ws/ TechShop is a vibrant, creative community that provides access to tools, software and space. You can make virtually anything at TechShop. Come and build your dreams! TechShop is a playground for creativity. Part fabrication and prototyping studio, part hackerspace and part learning center, TechShop provides access to over $1 million worth of professional equipment and software. We offer comprehensive instruction and expert staff to ensure you have a safe, meaningful and rewarding experience. Most importantly, at TechShop you can explore the world of making in a collaborative and creative environment. It is not known whether Techshop really has the equipment and resources to support this kind of an effort. However, the excitement generated towards such a replication effort would encourage Techshops around the country to acquire such equipment, working with National Instruments and others. For instance
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June--
When this report is published it will probably be greeted with a yawn. Rossi needs to demo his plant to the patent office and then he'd get his patent approved. It would be at that point that LENR breaks out. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Yesterday Rossi (on his reader blog) indicated that the third party tests would *not* be reported before June. Vortexers have at least another month to speculate on the mechanism of the Ni-H Rossi Effect. However it may be quite bit longer, depending upon patent disclosure strategy. What are the possibilities regarding outing of a theory supported by good data in conjunction with the release of the third party report? Like Rossi implies in his response to a comment yesterday regarding the probability of the Rossi Effect happening naturally, the design of his reactor certainly had some design behind it. I think Focardi nailed the theory and should be hailed appropriately. Rossi had the wherewithal to add some development funds and theory of his own and probably should get the Nobel Prize. I hope it happens soon. I am planning a trip to Italy in September and will visit the University of Bologna for two days with the objective of talking with folks who knew Focardi and are currently working in the field of solid states physics and nano technology. Alain has already asked me to visit the History Dept there as well to find out the facts about the death of Bruno which this blog discussed a few weeks ago. I will report on my trip and interactions. Vortexers that may have other ideas or questions, if so inclined, should present them to me via my own email address so that I might address them with the Bologna historians or researchers. Alain has already given me some good ideas and leads. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 9:38 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pasadena: Theater Arts at Caltech dramatizes the discovery and debunking of “cold fusion” (bring tomatoes) I believe that play has been around for a while. I heard about it years ago. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June--
Rossi has already done that. He reported that last year his coworkers were able to build one of his devices and get excess heat simply on his instructions, without him being in the room (or even being on the same continent). On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi needs to explain how to build the thing or he's not getting a patent. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: When this report is published it will probably be greeted with a yawn. Rossi needs to demo his plant to the patent office and then he'd get his patent approved. It would be at that point that LENR breaks out. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Yesterday Rossi (on his reader blog) indicated that the third party tests would *not* be reported before June. Vortexers have at least another month to speculate on the mechanism of the Ni-H Rossi Effect. However it may be quite bit longer, depending upon patent disclosure strategy. What are the possibilities regarding outing of a theory supported by good data in conjunction with the release of the third party report? Like Rossi implies in his response to a comment yesterday regarding the probability of the Rossi Effect happening naturally, the design of his reactor certainly had some design behind it. I think Focardi nailed the theory and should be hailed appropriately. Rossi had the wherewithal to add some development funds and theory of his own and probably should get the Nobel Prize. I hope it happens soon. I am planning a trip to Italy in September and will visit the University of Bologna for two days with the objective of talking with folks who knew Focardi and are currently working in the field of solid states physics and nano technology. Alain has already asked me to visit the History Dept there as well to find out the facts about the death of Bruno which this blog discussed a few weeks ago. I will report on my trip and interactions. Vortexers that may have other ideas or questions, if so inclined, should present them to me via my own email address so that I might address them with the Bologna historians or researchers. Alain has already given me some good ideas and leads. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 9:38 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pasadena: Theater Arts at Caltech dramatizes the discovery and debunking of “cold fusion” (bring tomatoes) I believe that play has been around for a while. I heard about it years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June--
US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application Previoushttp://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-video-files/ Nexthttp://coldfusionnow.org/lenr-the-promise-of-clean-and-affordable-energy-at-university-of-northern-iowa/ - http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Title-Rossi-Patent.jpg - - US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application The US Examiner at the United States Patent Office has finally reached the patent application http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=6f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PG01s1=andrea.IN.s2=Rossi.IN.OS=IN/andrea+AND+IN/RossiRS=IN/andrea+AND+IN/Rossiof Andrea Rossi. That application was first filed as an Italian filing on April 9, 2008. It was translated into English and up-graded into an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2009125444- PCT on August 4, 2009. And it finally arrived at the US Patent Office as of September 16, 2010. The text of the disclosure in this application became frozen as of the date of the PCT filing, August 4, 2009. It is not permissible to amend the story after the “final” filing of a regular patent application, which is how a PCT application is treated. Therefore this application represents Rossi’s understanding of his invention as of August 4, 2009. As is usual with a first initiative by a US Patent Office Examiner, this Office Actionhttp://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rossi-US-appln-SN12-736193-Office-Action-rejection-7pgs-24Mar141.pdfrejects the application. Rossi now has three months from March 26, 2014, extendable upon fee payments up to six months, to file a Response. That Response must overcome the Examiner’s objections or the application will go abandoned, unless Rossi pays fees for Continued Examination or files an appeal. The key claim that Rossi was endeavoring to obtain reads as follows: “1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.” “Hexothermal” is spelling error for “exothermal” which can easily be corrected. This claim is supposed to identify a new method which will produce excess heat. While the application explicitly states, in para [0065]: “the invention actually provides a true nuclear cold fusion”, the Examiner’s Office Action does not use the expression “Cold Fusion” to criticize the filing. Instead, the Examiner expressed doubt that the described invention would be able to provide the heat as alleged and claimed. He therefore concluded that, unless shown to the contrary, he was going to rule that the invention does not work, i.e. it is “inoperable”. An invention must be useful to qualify for a patent. Therefore, unless Rossi can prove the contrary, this application will be rejected for failing to meet the utility requirement of Section 101 of the US Patent Act. While Rossi cannot add any further text to the disclosure in this application by way of amendment, if he can show that, following the recipes set-out in his original disclosure, the results as promised can actually be achieved, then the Examiner may withdraw this objection. Rossi would have to provide authoritative evidence to this effect, probably from an independent source such as a Research Institute or an established Engineering firm in order to be sure of satisfying the Examiner. That may cost a substantial amount of money. Unfortunately, any outside evaluator would be required to follow the procedures described in the application based on knowledge as it existed as of the date of the PCT filing on August 4, 2009. This may prove a barrier to demonstrating utility. As an additional ground of rejection, the Examiner has also alleged that the disclosure is inadequate as failing to meet the requirements of Section 112 of the US Patent Act which reads as follows: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.” Rossi faces the challenge that he must not only prove that the invention as described in the application actually works in the manner as promised, but also that the disclosure is sufficient to enable others to achieve such useful results. The Examiner did not refer to this specific passage in the disclosure of the Rossi patent application: “[0025] In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I am simply asking ***There is nothing simple about your asking. You led with this statement: As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. you how you came to arrive at your opinion. ***I would ask the same of you, but you can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. You demand explanation within LENR when everyone involved with LENR knows that the phenomena cannot be explained at this time. How did you arrive at your opinion that someone could generate such an opinion, and that they could do so to your satisfaction when you've demonstrated such obtuse reasoning? If such a request offends you ***The request does not offend me. Your original approach offends me and should offend anyone. Consider this to be me as often as I instruct you. then forget this attempt at further communication. ***You call this communication? Your stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze: If Rossi turned out to be real, then what do you think would happen to Stirling Cycle Engine technology? In particular, a company like CYPW would skyrocket, right? On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Decreasing probability to 46% based on lack of news from Nanor but up to 47% based on recent news from Darden in China: http://www.icebank.cn/news/detail_2.php?id=118 hat tip: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/09/tom-darden-involved-in-opening-of-nickel-hydrogen-energy-research-center-in-tianjin-china/ Note: I suspect there will be an up to (-30%, +15%) swing in probability when the june report comes out. Big news indeed. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Put that back to 43%: Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here. It'd be good to find out who those other investors are. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release. Big big BIG news. Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about Cherokee. I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe. XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultanthttp://www.linkedin.com/search?search=title=Frelance+ConsultantsortCriteria=RkeepFacets=truecurrentTitle=CPtrk=prof-exp-title European Gaming and Gambling Tech Markethttp://www.linkedin.com/search?search=company=European+Gaming+and+Gambling+Tech+MarketsortCriteria=RkeepFacets=truetrk=prof-exp-company-name -4% Now back to 31%. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This is based on - STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%) - Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) - Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%) - Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point. Could be updating this probability more frequently.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
From many experts in engine I've heard that stirling engine are not a realistic solution... They are popular but don't works well on the field. (hearsay) ***Perhaps that is because there hasn't been much money poured into RD for stirlings. If LENR were to break out of its skeptopathic prison cell, it would break open the money gates holding back technology such as Stirling Cycle engines. Only application seems to be small 1kWmech electric production in CHP. this may be very usefull anyway for home CHP. ***Exactly. Stirlings are in the position where they are the most realistic solution when there's a concentrated heat source. All that's missing is the concentrated heat source, and if Rossi gets the nod from NASA and those independent professors, he'll have no trouble with getting the patent. I've heard better about rankine engine (not turbine) and some variation of the stirling where valves are added, the ericsson engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_cycle ***Do you know of publicly traded companies that sell these engines? Some expert told me that we should not in fact focus on todays technology as today turbine and engine are small market, and that if thermal engine are produced with the same technology and volume as car engine, it may cost 700$... ***And as far as I can tell, the only publicly traded company focused on developing a thermal engine is CYPW. There was Infinia, but they went bankrupt and the assets were bought by a private Israeli company. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: From many experts in engine I've heard that stirling engine are not a realistic solution... They are popular but don't works well on the field. (hearsay) Only application seems to be small 1kWmech electric production in CHP. this may be very usefull anyway for home CHP. I've heard better about rankine engine (not turbine) and some variation of the stirling where valves are added, the ericsson engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ericsson_cycle Some expert told me that we should not in fact focus on todays technology as today turbine and engine are small market, and that if thermal engine are produced with the same technology and volume as car engine, it may cost 700$... 2014-05-15 9:35 GMT+02:00 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com: Blaze: If Rossi turned out to be real, then what do you think would happen to Stirling Cycle Engine technology? In particular, a company like CYPW would skyrocket, right? On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Decreasing probability to 46% based on lack of news from Nanor but up to 47% based on recent news from Darden in China: http://www.icebank.cn/news/detail_2.php?id=118 hat tip: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/09/tom-darden-involved-in-opening-of-nickel-hydrogen-energy-research-center-in-tianjin-china/ Note: I suspect there will be an up to (-30%, +15%) swing in probability when the june report comes out. Big news indeed. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Put that back to 43%: Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden (investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here. It'd be good to find out who those other investors are. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release. Big big BIG news. Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about Cherokee. I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe. XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news coming out of BLP and McKubre. Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon. The next indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Fulvio , the tech Director R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - FL - USA previous job was: Frelance Consultanthttp://www.linkedin.com/search?search=title=Frelance+ConsultantsortCriteria=RkeepFacets=truecurrentTitle=CPtrk=prof-exp-title European
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Cyclone power had it's fashion time, but today they are a penny stock. ***All the better. Here is a cheap way LENR afficianados to put our money where our mouth is. Upside potential is quite high, and the downside is that Cyclone is not a healthy company, possibly about to go bankrupt like Infinia did.
[Vo]:Is a Bulletproof E-Cat Report Possible?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/15/is-a-bulletproof-e-cat-report-possible/ Is a Bulletproof E-Cat Report Possible? Posted on May 15, 2014 by admin http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/ • 21 Commentshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/15/is-a-bulletproof-e-cat-report-possible/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/2d1369be02637ce517b84e247c671579/ Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics a reader told Andrea Rossi that in some ways he was his own worst enemy because he has left open the door where his harshest critics can criticize him. He mentioned specifically that the Levi et. al report left open a question about a hidden source of DC power because of the lack of control over input power. Rossi responded by explaining how the current testers have made modifications based on criticisms of the last report: “The issue of the lack of control of the direct current arrived into the reactor’s resistances is true, as we have seen, but nobody has thought , when the report has been written, to check this point, that was totally out of the minds of all, when the test protocol has been made. As you surely know ( I can see that you have some source of information) new report is in preparation, for a long run test, and this time the Professors of the Third Independent Party have taken advantage of the experience of the last year test, and have considered all the observations made after the test of 2013 from all the Readers of the report that made comments about it and criticized it. The issue of the measurement of the direct current, for example, has beet taken in strong consideration, as well as many other particulars. Two factors have strongly improved the test made this year: the experience that the Professors made in 2013 and meditated upon for 1 year in the particulars, also studying all the critics they received, and the length of the test, that allowed a deep knowledge of the operation. Another important factor of difference is the fact that the test has been made in a neutral laboratory, not of our property, where the energy source ( PLUG) was not of ours and the Professors made the set up from the plug to the control box.” It seems then that there have been important modifications made to the test setup in the current regimen, and one would expect the testers will have, as far is reasonably possible, eliminated the possibility for people to make accusations that the E-Cat is receiving some kind of hidden power source. The last test was done on Rossi’s own premises — this one is apparently in a neutral location — and as Rossi has mentioned above, the testers have been involved in constructing the experimental setup. It all sounds very positive to me, and I am expecting this to be a much improved test compared to the first one. But my question here is, regardless of how careful the testers are — is it possible to create a really bulletproof test that will silence the critics? I would like to think, yes — but my life experience tells me no. It seems that there is usually a segment of critics in all fields of life who will find one way or another to try to justify their position, and I suspect this will be the case with the E-Cat report. I think it is great that the ‘professors’, have been taking the objections raised about last year’s test seriously. I think it will lead to a more convincing test — and my hope is that many people will find it convincing enough to start to take the E-Cat more seriously, and that many people will climb off the fence following the publication of this report (assuming it’s positive). But I won’t be surprised if the harshest critics find some other justification to carry on their opposition and raise objections. In the end I don’t think that matters very much — because eventually I expect that working E-Cats will be demonstrated to work well in the real world, but until them, I am not expecting that all the critics will be silenced.
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June--
This might very well be the case. They needed time enough for the technology to be reliably demonstrated under critical eyes. So they wait for the 3rd party test report, then announce that they will demo to the patent office per USPTO's stated position. This will create buzz, just like what happened when the Wright brothers demo'd their devices to crowds that were highly skeptical (at first), and it became a huge media event. 2014-05-11 18:43 GMT-03:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: https://www.boxbe.com/overview Rossi's partners at Industrial Heat (IH) are probably familiar with the patent system and are stringing out the issuance as long as possible. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Rossi's partners at Industrial Heat (IH) are probably familiar with the patent system and are stringing out the issuance as long as possible. Like Dave said, this allows patent protection into the future as long as possible. Rossi did say recently on his blog that he does not understand the theory of his invention.At least this was what was implied. As is evident, peer review of any theory is problematic at this time. However, it seems that the PO will issue patents without a proven theory to explain every detail of an inventions operation. The Navy and NASA have gotten cold fusion patents for inventions and the theory is not evident yet. In addition the Japanese are also giving patents and EU is as well. I think the PO decided that it needed to get into the field for fear of being being a pimble on the A of progress here in the US. Rossi has several months to answer the PO's comments regarding his application. I assume IH will do that to best of their ability, consistent with their strategy. I would guess this strategy attempts to take into account whether any other entity understands how to build a working E-Cat or Hot Cat and, if not, an estimate when someone might catch on. It will be interesting to observe whether or not the independent third party, testing the Rossi invention, comes out with any theory about how it works. It may be that the third party agreed not to discuss theory and only report results of the testing. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2014 2:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Rossi Effect Not Before June-- Rossi has already done that. He reported that last year his coworkers were able to build one of his devices and get excess heat simply on his instructions, without him being in the room (or even being on the same continent). On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi needs to explain how to build the thing or he's not getting a patent. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: When this report is published it will probably be greeted with a yawn. Rossi needs to demo his plant to the patent office and then he'd get his patent approved. It would be at that point that LENR breaks out. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Yesterday Rossi (on his reader blog) indicated that the third party tests would *not* be reported before June. Vortexers have at least another month to speculate on the mechanism of the Ni-H Rossi Effect. However it may be quite bit longer, depending upon patent disclosure strategy. What are the possibilities regarding outing of a theory supported by good data in conjunction with the release of the third party report? Like Rossi implies in his response to a comment yesterday regarding the probability of the Rossi Effect happening naturally, the design of his reactor certainly had some design behind it. I think Focardi nailed the theory and should be hailed appropriately. Rossi had the wherewithal to add some development funds and theory of his own and probably should get the Nobel Prize. I hope it happens soon. I am planning a trip to Italy in September and will visit the University of Bologna for two days with the objective of talking with folks who knew Focardi and are currently working in the field of solid states physics and nano technology. Alain has already asked me to visit the History Dept there as well to find out the facts about the death of Bruno which this blog discussed a few weeks ago. I will report on my trip and interactions. Vortexers that may have other ideas or questions, if so inclined, should present them to me via my own email address so that I might address them with the Bologna historians or researchers. Alain has already given me some good ideas and leads. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 9:38 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pasadena: Theater Arts at Caltech
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Then are we now adding the condition that the temperature needs to be above 800C in order to determine that Rossi is real??? We seem to be off the track of that subject. We've been talking about what is the optimum engine technically to work with a LENR device. My question is aimed at SWWAT-- Starting With What's Available Today. And my question hasn't really been answered -- If Rossi is determined to be real, wouldn't a stock like CYPW take off? Are there other public stocks that would skyrocket? Any steam engine stocks? It seems generically obvious to me that CYPW would take off. I don't know of any other publicly traded stocks that would skyrocket as a result of Rossi being real. This brings me obliquely to a point I made earlier about Blaze Spinnaker. I didn't think he was being straightforward when he first brought this probability thing up. And I don't think he's straightforward now. Here's how: Let's say we wake up tomorrow and read in the news that Rossi is real. The independent third party report verifies that he has a rainbow directly proceeding from his hind quarters and there's a pot of gold there (but no leprachaun to explain it all). And NASA says they have been evaluating this device and are ready to purchase more than 100 units for testing. And IH says they are ready to schedule a demo to the patent office so that they can proceed with the patent as the PTO has outlined, by demonstrating the technology. All the vectors point towards It's real. The world is suddenly turned on its head. Immediately we would see a huge capital shift into every corner of this technology -- hundreds of $billions. A stock like CYPW would be targeted by Toyota or any number of multi$Billion enterprise companies. So that means that, if someone posts that they think it's a 35% chance that Rossi is real but don't think it's worthwhile to invest accordingly, he's not being straightforward. If someone were to tell you that there's a 1/3 chance that within a quarter, you could make 5X return on an investment, it would be worth putting a thousand dollars down, wouldn't it? Actually, when you see what kind of jumps penny stocks take, and that CYPW has jumped by more than that in 2007 (more than 100X), it increases those pot odds substantially. And the downside is that it's an unhealthy company like CYPW, who could go bankrupt (like Infinia did) within a year. It's quite similar to the way poker is played. If you're trying to fill an inside straight (11:1 odds to fill) and the pot odds are $20:1 (costs $1 to win $20), then the smart move is to stay in because the pot odds are higher than the winning odds. If it costs $4 to stay in, the pot odds go to $5:1, and you stay out. With stock, if your emotional odds are 1/3 of winning, and the pot odds are $1:10, where $1 wins you $10, then you buy because the emotional odds are lower than the pot odds. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: From many experts in engine I've heard that stirling engine are not a realistic solution... If the temperature of a device approaches 8-900 C, as seen in the Elforsk test, a simple steam engine should be adequate. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
The Elforsk test gives me, personally speaking, sufficient information to believe that Rossi is probably for real. ***Does that mean you think it's a 51% probability that Rossi is real? On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Then are we now adding the condition that the temperature needs to be above 800C in order to determine that Rossi is real??? I was addressing the question of whether a Stirling engine would be necessary or useful; I was saying it shouldn't be needed if temperatures can be made to reach as high as those seen in the Elforsk test. The Elforsk test gives me, personally speaking, sufficient information to believe that Rossi is probably for real. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of [recrimination]. Pot, meet kettle.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: ***Does that mean you think it's a 51% probability that Rossi is real? I don't know if I can quantify the feeling with so much precision. ***I understand. In inductive reasoning, when one says one thing is probably true, it implies that it is at a minimum slightly more chance of being true than false, which is that 51% figure. I'm on the fence about the underlying premises of prediction markets. ***That makes sense. It is all our own internal reasoning, which takes in data from sometimes unrelated sources. Blaze sure has demonstrated that. For instance, he modifies the Rossi is real conclusion with data from MFMP and the NANOR. Both are unrelated to Rossi. Perhaps a feeling that there is an 80+% chance that he's got something, with a healthy allowance for the possibility of a negative surprise in the future. ***Thanks for that figure. I agree that it has a healthy allowance of a negative surprise in the future. Let's say that you feel about the same way towards CYPW, that it has an 80% chance of skyrocketing if Rossi is real. That means that you think there is a (.80 x .80 = ) 64% chance that CYPW will skyrocket some time soon. Those are your emotional odds, analogous to hand odds in poker. The table odds are perhaps $10:1 or $20:1, depending on what would happen in a breakout. With the CYPW stock, it actually experienced a spike of greater than $100:1 on merely conventional news, whereas a LENR breakout is a black swan event; so I feel comfortable using $100:1 as the table odds. So it's 64% hand odds versus 1000% table odds. That signals a strong buy. Now, of course, when someone calculates internal emotional odds of something like Rossi has something and then you start talking about Putting My Money Down on such internal odds, everyone tightens up. So my internal emotional odds would actually be more like 1/2 for Rossi and 1/2 for CYPW. That still brings us to 25% hand odds versus 1% table odds. It is still a strong buy signal. With penny stocks, there's nothing like a low price to overcome paranoia. With this instance, the internal emotional odds also include the desire to put my money where my mouth is, as well as to contribute to the LENR effort with some expectation of gain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
My problem is that I don't know how to short oil. I agree that this would be preferential because it is probably far more liquid and one could wait until the very last minute. For instance, we all know that most of the world is ignoring LENR news. As soon as that independent report is published, one could jump at that time without too much risk of losing out on the event. The world isn't likely to wake up on such news. The world might wake up if IH scheduled a demo for the USPTO so they could secure their patent. That seems likely. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley …And my question hasn't really been answered -- If Rossi is determined to be real, wouldn't a stock like CYPW take off? Are there other public stocks that would skyrocket? Any steam engine stocks? I think that this is a good question and especially because many who support LENR would probably plow back any profits made from the Rossi announcement into RD. Rossi is the tip of the massive iceberg – capable of sinking the Titanic OPEC (or at least turning her back to port) but since AR admits to not understanding what is going on –this is a wide open field, needing only RD dollars and smart experienced researchers to explore all the angles. However, CYPW has never seemed like anything special to me. It is basically a small steam engine which does not suffer the usual set of inefficiencies when scaled down, and there are some serious red flags in their presentation. If one were to look for the best conversion technology (low temp heat to electric) it would appear to be ORC. The Organic Rankin Cycle is “like steam” but better and already in production for conversion of waste industrial heat. In fact CYPW will surely change over to ORC if Rossi is limited to low temperature. We have mentioned this company before, going back several years, which unfortunately has a similar name as the failed Stirling company and may not be publicly traded - but there are 3-4 others in ORC (and I am a terrible stock picker). http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html However, if there was a quick dollar to be made from the announcement itself, which would play on public sentiment and market hysteria (rather than real economic realities) it would seem to me that the biggest immediate way to make money would be to short oil. There are other reasons to short oil, anyway. Here is some info on that: http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/99558/4-Ways-to-Short-Oil-with-ETFs Jones
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: We have mentioned this company before, going back several years, which unfortunately has a similar name as the failed Stirling company and may not be publicly traded - but there are 3-4 others in ORC (and I am a terrible stock picker). http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html No it is not publicly traded. Perhaps Capstone Turbine would be a better choice: CPST On the plus side, they have product that they sell, more than $100M revenues. Reasonably healthy company. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/cpst/charts?symb=CPSTcountrycode=UStime=13startdate=1%2F4%2F1999enddate=5%2F16%2F2014freq=1compidx=nonecompind=nonecomptemptext=Enter+Symbol%28s%29comp=noneuf=7168ma=1maval=50lf=1lf2=4lf3=0type=2size=2style=1013
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
The problem is... Y.E. Kim appears to have moved forward on data from Defkalion without verifying that their device works. He could have done the same thing with Cyclone. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: You people know that Kim is doing consulting for CYPW, right? And that its headquarters are 40min away from Rossi's hom... HQ of Leonardo corporation. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Here's an example of some early-adopter money starting to move into this space. The problem is, it's not available to just anyone, and in particular, they already closed it off for this fund. http://form-d.findthebest.com/l/162985/Lenr-Invest-Fund-I-LLC Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC, which is in the Pooled Investment Fund business, filed a new Form D on May 13, 2014. Offering Details - The total reported offering size was $205,000. - Of this amount, Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC sold $205,000 or (100% of the offering), with the first sale occuring on May 01, 2014. - The minimum investment for this offering was set at $15,000. Analysis of Offering - On average, companies in this industry sell 34.75% of the total offering size. $0 was reported remaining. - The average floor on investment size for companies in the Pooled Investment Fund industry is $100,000. - The method of investment was Equity. Registration Exemptions - The company reported the following exemptions: Rule 506(b). *Rule 506(b):* A federal and state registration exmeption provided under Regulation D. Allows the issuer to raise unlimited funds with no limitations on the number of accredited investos and up to 35 non-accredited investors. The issuer is not allowed to publicly solicit the offering. For more information on Rule 506 see Key Regulation D Rules. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Any steam engine stocks? I think that this is a good question and especially because many who support LENR would probably plow back any profits made from the Rossi announcement into RD. Rossi is the tip of the massive iceberg – capable of sinking the Titanic OPEC (or at least turning her back to port) but since AR admits to not understanding what is going on –this is a wide open field, needing only RD dollars and smart experienced researchers to explore all the angles.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Here's an old discussion I had on an intrade board about the probability of Rossi being real http://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html Re: I miss Intradehttp://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html#p138 [image: Post] http://intrade.freeforums.org/post138.html#p138by *intrader http://intrade.freeforums.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=70* » Mon May 27, 2013 2:12 am Third time is the charm: P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) or P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(A|B) A = E-Cat Rossi is real B = Cold fusion (or something close to it) is discovered If E-Cat is real, it looks like cold fusion to me (or something close to it). P(B|A) = 0.5 I think we all can go with the prior probability that E-Cat Rossi was probably not real (history of fraud / was convicted / etc) P(A) = 0.01 Now, what is the probability that if cold fusion exists that it's going to be Rossi that makes a real e-cat? Interestingly, the more we disparage Rossi (relative to his colleagues) here, the more likely cold fusion exists. Unfortunately, I think only people like Rossi are actually looking at cold fusion. So if it does exists, I think it's reasonable to say it'll be Rossi or perhaps someone like Rossi that might discover it. So, P(A|B) = 0.05 (I think it's fair to say at least 20 other people are looking at it). However, if it looks like more people of Rossi's caliber or better are looking at Cold Fusion, then that bodes well for CF. So, go ahead and punch in your own number there. Counter intuitive, kinda, but that's bayes for you. So, P(B) = (0.5 * 0.01) / 0.05 = 25% cold fusion exists.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I suppose that goes right to the heart of what Blaze means by Real. If PdD fusion were real in his mind, we would have PdD cold fusion reactors replacing coal plants by the dozen every month, people would be ordering a cup of Richard Garwin tea from Starbucks, and you could buy a LENR generator for $5000. On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Cold Fusion exists for PdD. What is not proven is NiH fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
It says it's in a peer reviewed journal but doesn't say which one... After careful testing, Podkletnov has found the speed of the antigravity impulse to be approximately 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates does not conflict with modern interpretations of Relativity Theory. ***I have seen this claim before. Here's an example: http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/51645/ http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/51645/#msg282158 Oct 6, 2011 at 7:52am *m4ster r0shi* (2148) http://www.cplusplus.com/user/m4ster_r0shi/ This isn't news. *Prediction No. 11 (2003)*: Subquantum kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130). [...] *Verification (2008)*: The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, *Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light.* In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. *Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.* http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity… http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html -mark
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
CYPW is even cheaper today, closing at 0.009 cents. If they stay below a penny, they'll get downgraded to the pink sheets AFAIK. This is a rare chance for LENR aficianados to put a little bit of money down with the possibility of Black Swan Level gains and support LENR at the same time. With the independent Rossi report coming out in June and CYPW barely hanging on, it is a perfect storm. I put my money on this stock... where my mouth is again. How I Made Money From Cold Fusion. http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/post ... /2239.pagehttp://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/85/2239.page https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg37542.html On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Cyclone power had it's fashion time, but today they are a penny stock. ***All the better. Here is a cheap way LENR afficianados to put our money where our mouth is. Upside potential is quite high, and the downside is that Cyclone is not a healthy company, possibly about to go bankrupt like Infinia did.
