[Vo]:Off Topic: Blackmail

[Harry Veeder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDAFrW_vNNQ

;-)

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:




- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner 
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion



On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:



Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind.
The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system
undergoing fusion,
and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the

system due

to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you

mean> does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity?


Harry


I have not mentioned accelerations at all, only *forces*, i.e. two
force laws.


Unless you are considering a static system where the net force is  
zero,

acceleration occurs whether you want to mention it or not. ;-)

harry


Actually, I guess I did mention it indirectly when I said: "... when  
things get relativistic, there is not a large difference in  
interacting particle gammas because the mass ratios are only 3 orders  
of magnitude apart, so the interactions keep the gammmas in a similar  
range, not varying anything like 30 orders of magnitude."  Particles  
only 3 orders of magnitude apart are going to develop similar  
(compared to 10^30) gammas due to mutual acceleration.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner 
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

> 
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
> 
> > Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind.
> > The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system  
> > undergoing fusion,
> > and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the 
> system due
> > to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you 
> mean> does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity?
> >
> > Harry
> 
> I have not mentioned accelerations at all, only *forces*, i.e. two  
> force laws.  

Unless you are considering a static system where the net force is zero,
acceleration occurs whether you want to mention it or not. ;-)

harry



> Clearly macro gravity effects from stars affect fusion  
> by increasing pressure and temperature, but this is indeed way  
> outside the scope of what I am talking about, which is just the  
> forces involved in the interaction of, and only between, two nuclei 
> 
> plus electrons resulting in fusion or the prevention thereof.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

It is interesting what might happen if a tiny black hole is created.   
By my theory of gravimagnetics, both the near field Coulomb force and  
near field magnetic forces would be felt outside the black hole.  By  
standard theory the effect of charge would disappear, leaving only  
gravity.   Rs, the Schwarzschild radius is given by:


   Rs = 2 G m/c^2

and if we use m to be the mass of a proton plus electron we get:

   Rs = 2.485x10^-54 m

"All we have to do" to test the outcome with regards to fusion is  
shrink a proton to a tiny fraction of the Planck length of   
1.6x10^-35 m to test the theory with regard to fusion!  OTOH, we  
could accelerate a proton to billions of electron volts to get the  
relativistic mass to about where it is needed, but that probably  
wouldn't tell us anything about fusion.


Still, it might be most interesting to see if tiny black holes are  
seen to make tracks in particle detectors, if the world holds  
together long enough to make sense of the tracks.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Let me describe this in a more organized fashion. Profs may be guilty of a
whole spectrum of misbehavior, ranging from trivial to reprehensible. I have
no idea where on this scale de Bivort's friend is, so it is unfair for me to
condemn him. I am just using him a hypothetical example. As I see it, these
are the major categories:

CATEGORY 1. For people who badmouth or attack cold fusion, or any research,
without knowing about it:

Badmouthing in private. Unimportant. If this is all de Bivort's friend is
doing, and he doesn't feel like reading cold fusion papers, that is his
business. I have no objection.

Badmouthing in public or when a reporter asks. Annoying.

Writing a mass media article, or lecturing undergrads. Unethical.

Attacking the reputation of cold fusion researchers. Downright evil.

Firing researchers, threatening them with deportation. A prof should be
fired for doing this sort of thing.


CATEGORY 2. People who know something about cold fusion and who are aware
that it is real (or probably real):

Badmouthing it private or public or doing any of those other things is
unethical. Garwin is the only person I know to be in this category. He
reported to the Pentagon that he found no error at SRI, but told the public
on CBS “60 Minutes” that he thinks there is an error.


CATEGORY 3. People who have read a lot about the research but sincerely
believe that all of the results are mistaken or fraud. As long as they do
not persecute researchers they have done nothing wrong. They are incompetent
in my opinion, but that is not an ethical issue.


SEPARATE CATEGORY. Scientists who are aware of the academic politics,
persecution and oppression, yet who do not speak out against it. If they are
afraid to speak out, this is moral cowardice. It is understandable. If they
do not care or they think it is okay to persecute people to get ahead in the
academic rat-race, this is reprehensible.

The above only applies to professional scientists. Bloggers, journalists,
and amateur nitwits who edit Wikipedia have no training or background, so
they cannot be held responsible for stupid mistakes, ignorance, logical
errors, blatant politics, distortion, or violations of academic ethics. They
never learned that you are supposed to study a subject carefully before
reaching a conclusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

What about the acceleration at the very center of the earth, I know  
It cancels but is time dilated even slower than on the surface or  
does dilation cancel too?

Regards
Fran



If an elevator existed to the center of the earth and you took it to  
the center, time dilation, (1 - (2 G M)/(r c^2))^0.5,  would reduce  
to zero when you reached the center. This is due to the fact that the  
*effective* M is given by M = k * r^3, because the effect of the  
spherical shell mass outside that radius sums to zero. The time  
dilation factor f is thus:


   f = (1 - (2 G (k * r^3))/(r c^2))^0.5

   f = (1 - (2 G (k * r^2))/(c^2))^0.5

and:

   (limit r ->0)  f = (limit r ->0) (1 - (2 G (k * r^2))/(c^2))^0.5

   (limit r ->0)  f = (1 - 0)^0.5 = 1

and there is no time dilation.  Not that you would notice.

Given the mass of the earth is 5.9736 × 10^24 kg and radius r is  
6,378.1 km, and G = 6.67259x10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2), we have:


(2 G M)/(r c^2) = ( 2 (6.67259x10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2))  (5.9736×10^24  
kg)) / ( (6,378.1 km) / (2.9979x10^8 m/s)^2)


(2 G M)/(r c^2) = 1.3878x10^-9

and

(1 - (2 G M)/(r c^2))^0.5 = 0.9326

so time is slowed by about 1.4828 parts in billion, or about 0.02128  
seconds per year at the earth's surface, if I did all that right  
(which is doubtful given my track record!)


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:



Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind.
The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system  
undergoing fusion,

and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the system due
to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you mean
does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity?

Harry


I have not mentioned accelerations at all, only *forces*, i.e. two  
force laws.  Clearly macro gravity effects from stars affect fusion  
by increasing pressure and temperature, but this is indeed way  
outside the scope of what I am talking about, which is just the  
forces involved in the interaction of, and only between, two nuclei  
plus electrons resulting in fusion or the prevention thereof.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:


OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or
even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are
computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the
surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the
volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume.
In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and
their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic
calculus.  This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational
equivalent) is applied for non-point objects.  It works for ordinary
volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave
functions.


Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result
(rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention.


You ignore that *both* the Coulomb and Newton laws apply in every  
case, i.e. for every pair of tiny volumes between which forces are  
computed, and thus the huge *ratio* of forces remains at about  
10^30.  The fact that all kinds of wild fields and force equations  
result from macro sized bodies is completely irrelevant to the  
accuracy of the fundamental laws.




And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different
result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function  
then,

in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from
collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be  
escaping from

it.


So what?  The solar system runs for billions of years without  
collapsing.  Does this invalidate Newton's laws of gravitation?  No.   
There is no reason to expect the Coulomb force to disappear at small  
radii just because it is balanced by other forces. The law is still  
valid, there are merely other forces at work at close range which  
have to be added also. Even if it did, similar effects would happen  
to the gravitational force as well, so it is *remains* insignificant  
compared to the Coulomb force.  The two forces are coupled to a given  
volume in very similar ratios, not varying in ratio by anything like  
10^30 for any pair of charged particles at a given distance r.



If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or  
another

factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength of the
Coulomb force,



You confuse the fundamental force at work with macro effects.



why it could not have effects also on the gravitational
force?



However the forces are summed, they remain in about the same ratio.   
Where there is charge there is mass, and they remain in roughly the  
same ratio.  Fusion is about overcoming the Coulomb barrier, thus is  
an issue of forces between charges.




Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision  
between the
strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least  
one of

these forces clearly suffers alterations,



The fundamental force does *not* change, as noted before.  You have  
to distinguish between what is fundamental law and the sums that are  
result of the application of that law and thus merely the result of  
any whimsical body shapes and motions desired.  It still sums nicely  
across small volumes, though relativistic adjustments have to be made  
if the speeds involved are high enough.  Even so, when things get  
relativistic, there is not a large difference in interacting particle  
gammas because the mass ratios are only 3 orders of magnitude apart,  
so the interactions keep the gammmas in a similar range, not varying  
anything like 30 orders of magnitude.  Gravity remains insignificant  
when it comes to overcoming the Coulomb barrier, and that is the  
point of my posting.


Here is an analogy.  We can say F = m*g for every particle in the  
body.  We can't say that law breaks down, is invalid, just because  
every person does not weigh the same, or just because we each have  
centers of gravity located in various places, or some of us have very  
different weight distribution from others.  In all cases the whole is  
the sum of the parts, but the sums are not necessarily equal. We also  
can't say the law is invalid because we weigh less on a mountain top,  
because that just changes g, so the sum of the masses of all our  
atoms changes there. The law remains valid.  Further we can't say  
that law breaks down just because we want to sum over the parts of an  
atom, or quantum waveform.  It still applies to the parts.




even independently of the fact
that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a  
wave

function?

Best regards
Mauro


You have raised so many red herrings that we are in need of a pickle  
jar. 8^)  There may well be some valid criticisms of my point that  
gravity is irrelevant to fusion, that gravity is insignificant  
comp

Re: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is Aya's report on the prez's visit, with photos and a link to the text
and video of his speech, which was not bad:

http://ayarothwell.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-at-mit.html

The link to the text goes here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/politics/24obama.text.html

Regrettably, the guy Obama calls out -- Moniz -- is one of the outspoken
enemies of cold fusion.

- Jed

[Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Lawrence de Bivort wrote:

I am not trying to change my colleague's thinking, as much as here I 
was only reporting what his thinking vis-a-vis CF was, as I 
understand it. You are right: he is fully engaged in important and 
demanding work, and doing a great job at it. No one can do 
everything solely because it is 'interesting'.  I know; I've tried.  :D


I have never criticized professional scientists who are uninterested 
in cold fusion, and who express no opinion of it (or only mild 
disapproval). I only criticize those who express a strong opinion 
without first doing their homework.


Also, let us make a distinction between a privately expressed, 
informal opinion and one that matters. If a scientist grouses about 
cold fusion to her friends and says "it looks like schlock science to 
me," that causes no harm. It is unprofessional, but heck, she is 
off-duty. It is only when the scientist writes an uninformed opinion 
in the mass media, or turns down a grant application that she causes harm.




It is silly to vilify him because he doesn't leap into CF work.


No one expects anyone to leap into CF work! Only qualified, 
experienced people should try. The only thing I expect of scientists 
is that they act in accordance with academic traditions and common 
sense. That means you look carefully at the results before judging 
them. That's fundamental. Anyone who does not do that in a serious 
evaluation is making a horrendous mistake, like a doctor who does not 
wash his hands before surgery. Some of the 2004 DoE evaluation panel 
members clearly did not do their homework.


I have said some unflattering things about de Bivort's friend, even 
though I know nothing about him. That is unfair. In a sense I am 
vilifying him, but only in the sense that I vilify T. H. Huxley for 
the racism of his entire generation. Huxley is one of my heros, and 
yet I blame him for not transcending the ugly failings of Western 
Civilization circa 1880. Only a few people are able to transcend 
these failings. Only a few white people in 1880 understood the 
terrible injustice of racism. Only a few scientists today realize 
that cold fusion and many other subjects are suppressed by the 
institutions of science, such as peer-review, centralized 
micromanaged funding, and so on. Only a few would agree with Robert Duncan:


"Research funding needs to become less dependent on the common 
assumptions within the culture of scientific communities, and much 
more courageous and objective."


You cannot blame people for not seeing problems that are 
society-wide; problems they have lived with their entire lives. When 
scientists everywhere slip into bad habits, such as dismissing an 
experiment they know nothing about, they become oblivious to how 
unprofessional and dangerous this is. They are inured to bad habits. 
In recent years, doctors everywhere have come to neglect basic 
hygiene such as washing hands, and this is taking a awful toll, 
killing tens of thousands of patients. Because it is so common, it 
has become acceptable.


Someday I hope that tide will change, people will realize that 
science has become dysfunctional, and cold fusion and other subjects 
will be funded. Science will return to the traditions of academic 
freedom that served it so well in the past. All institutions go 
through periods of health and growth followed by decay, followed by 
rejuvenation. This is not the end of science, but we are at a low 
ebb. Of course, all institutions also eventually go extinct. You 
don't see Pharaohs in Egypt any more, or samurai in Japan. The human 
race itself will eventually go extinct. So it is possible that 
science will not recover.


There is a duality here. A contradiction. You cannot blame one 
individual for the failings of an entire civilization, and yet in a 
sense you must blame him. We should not vilify de Bivort's friend. I 
have no doubt he is all that de Bivort said: "rational, friendly, 
dedicated, not uncurious, quite accessible . . . a good, smart and 
credible person." And yet, if he a professional scientist, and he has 
dismissed cold fusion without learning about it -- and especially if 
he has ever been charged with the responsibility to peer-review a 
paper or a grant for cold fusion -- then he has made a terrible 
mistake, and he has betrayed professional ethics and the spirit of 
academia. Science has brought enormous benefit to mankind, and the 
people who work as scientists are privileged. They have great power 
to do good or evil. They should take their responsibilities seriously.


No doubt many of the doctors who do not wash their hands are 
"rational, friendly, dedicated . . . good, smart" but they do not 
follow the rules and they accidentally kill people. They should be 
held responsible. It is not enough to be smart and have good intentions.


Getting back to the great moral failure of the past, racism, I know 
many elderly people in the south who are "rational, friendly, 
dedicated . .

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mauro Lacy 
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
>
>> >
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: Mauro Lacy 
>> > Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Horace Heffner wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Not true.
>> >>
>> >> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
>> >> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?
>> >
>> > One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth
>> using> Newton's law of gravity.
>>
>> And that acceleration will not conform to an inverse of the square
>> of the
>> distance law. Which proves my point: you cannot make assumptions
>> based on
>> Newton's law for distances smaller than R(where R is the radius of the
>> greater of the masses). That is, you cannot deduct behaviour for a
>> system,with a set of rules that are outside their contourn conditions.
>> Which was exactly what I was trying to show.
>>
>
> Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind.
> The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system undergoing
> fusion,
> and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the system due
> to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you mean
> does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity?

If you model the rate of change of acceleration with radius, you'll notice
that that rate of change does not conform to the inverse square law when
inside the Earth.

>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

> OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
>
> When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or
> even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are
> computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the
> surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the
> volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume.
> In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and
> their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic
> calculus.  This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational
> equivalent) is applied for non-point objects.  It works for ordinary
> volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave
> functions.

Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result
(rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention.
And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different
result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function then,
in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from
collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be escaping from
it.
If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or another
factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength of the
Coulomb force, why it could not have effects also on the gravitational
force?
Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision between the
strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least one of
these forces clearly suffers alterations, even independently of the fact
that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a wave
function?

Best regards
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or  
even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are  
computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the  
surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the  
volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume.  
In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and  
their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic  
calculus.  This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational  
equivalent) is applied for non-point objects.  It works for ordinary  
volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave  
functions.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:SciAm on sustainable energy and indoor farming

[Jed Rothwell]

The November 2008 issue of Scientific American has two articles about 
subjects dear to my heart:


M. Z. Jacobson and M. A. Delucchi, "A Path To Sustainable Energy 
2030." This describes how the U.S. could transition to fully 
sustainable energy, as follows:


Water (tidal, geothermal and hydroelectric) 1.1 TW
Wind 5.8 TW
Solar 4.6 TW

This is well written but the graph on pages 60 and 61 is confusing.

I think they put too much emphasis on rooftop PV and not enough on 
solar thermal.



D. Despommier, "The Rise of Vertical Farms"

Fascinating. The author makes many of the points that I made in 
chapter 16 of my book. (Clarke and other authors made these same 
points in various books, that I should have cited but did not.)


I did not realize these things could be made to work primarily with 
ambient sunlight, rather than artificial light. That changes the 
energy balance completely. The Japanese approach described in chapter 
16 is not needed. I shall have revise the book sometime. Still, I 
expect cheap energy would improve the prospects for these indoor 
vertical farms.


The lighting described in this article is not only direct ambient 
sunlight but also artificial light with electricity from PV panels on 
the roof of the building and from "incineration of plant waste."


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Yes, you got it.

I would distinguish between 'dedicated skeptics' -- people who have a vested
interest in being opposed to something, and those who have yet to be
convinced and will be somewhat hard-nosed about accepting new perspectives
on something. Perhaps this latter group constitutes, say, 95% of the
'skeptics'. I would say, forget the other 5%, the effort is not worth it.

But the larger group would not be hard to 'reach', and I don't think it
would take a lot to get many of them -- say a third, to read something that
is succinct (2-3 pages?), reasonable and comprehensive. Scientists are
naturally curious and busy. Can something be created that meets at the same
time the criteria that are implied in both qualities?

-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:19 AM
To: debiv...@evolutionaryservices.org; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

At 11:03 AM 10/22/2009, Lawrence de Bivort wrote:

>What do you think?  Does this make sense? Do you want me to say more 
>about 'out-framing'?  Or does the above give you an adequate sense 
>of what I am talking about?
>

I think I know what you mean. It would be a piece of writing that 
systematically approaches the misconceptions that keep people from 
taking a closer look at the evidence.

It would start by stating very clearly the reasons why cold fusion is 
possible, establishing and showing a clear understanding of why it 
would be properly rejected.

Then it would carefully, and step-by-step, dismantle this.

The trick, though, would be getting a dedicated skeptic to read it. 
Perhaps you approach him and ask him for a favor, would he criticize 
this? But you'd have to have the connection with him.

RE: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Hi, Abd al-Rahman,

Many thanks for your response and comments.

I read your account of your own evolution in thinking with great interest.
It is always nice to see someone thinking and acting together, with both
evolving.

I do like your idea of kits. I assume these kits would be less sophisticated
and less expensive and more numerous than those being developed by the US
government.  I wish you success.

The materials that I am advocating would be a nice complement to your
project, though they are to first order aimed at somewhat different
audiences. Both audiences are important.

I am not trying to change my colleague's thinking, as much as here I was
only reporting what his thinking vis-a-vis CF was, as I understand it. You
are right: he is fully engaged in important and demanding work, and doing a
great job at it. No one can do everything solely because it is
'interesting'.  I know; I've tried.  :D

It is silly to vilify him because he doesn't leap into CF work.

But as an intellectual exercise I have considered what it might take to get
his attention for CF, as his interest could make a significant difference in
advancing the field. 

The posters here seem to have written off Wikipedia. I think this is a
mistake: Wikipedia has emerged as the go-to place for people seeking
introductory and overview information about virtually all matters.  In my
opinion, CF should be covered, and covered in the most useful way possible.

Wikipedia has a very specific culture and set of processes that have guided
its development. Anyone wanting to get information into Wikipedia MUST work
within this framework. Not everyone can, but I don't think there is anything
intrinsic about CF that would make it harder for Wikipedia to cover properly
than it does thousands of even more controversial subjects, like the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Wikipedia does not want to be a place for
publishing cutting edge science -- for obvious reasons -- but CF is far
beyond that, now.

Cheers,

Lawry


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:09 AM
To: debiv...@evolutionaryservices.org; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

At 06:40 PM 10/22/2009, Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
>I don't think books will do I what I believe needs to be done, no matter
how
>well written -- because the book FORMAT will not get the job I envisage
>done.  The problem is not with the content but with the format. The books
do
>a good job at doing what they do. I am talking about a different task.

Less than a year ago, I was skeptical about cold fusion. I had been 
very aware of the events of 1989-1990, and, in fact, arranged to put 
$10,000 in a palladium metal account at a Swiss bank, which was about 
all the money I and my wife at the time could put together. I thought 
it was pretty safe, I didn't buy futures! And I got my money back, 
just didn't make any. I had followed the news for a year or so, and 
basically concluded that it was all a mistake, the theories that it 
was impossible were probably right, etc.

Then, being involved with Wikipedia as an active editor, I came 
across the Cold fusion article. There had been a blatantly unfair 
blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, and I started to work to undo that, 
not because of any support for cold fusion, but for fairness and 
Wikpedia policy. But I started reading the sources. Like Robert 
Duncan, I was quite surprised at what I found. The rejection of cold 
fusion had been an error; while strong skepticism had been 
appropriate, an incorrect impression arose that the basic finding of 
Pons and Fleischmann had been disproved, found to be sloppy, and that 
impression was compounded by many factors that had nothing to do with 
whether or not low energy nuclear reactions were taking place in the 
palladium deuteride system.

In the end, as had others before me, I was blocked from editing 
Wikipedia because it appeared to powerful editors there that I was 
now promoting a fringe science, even though I'd been very careful to 
only stick to reliable sources strictly according to Wikipedia 
guidelines. So, freed from any obligation or sense that I should 
remain neutral, I've started to work on an idea that came to me, 
thinking about cold fusion for more than a half a year, and about 
what could be done to educate the public and scientists.

Much focus from people in the field has been on trying to prove that 
LENR is a real phenomenon, but, in fact, there is quite adequate 
evidence, reliably reported and confirmed, to at least create a new 
preponderance of the evidence: it's real. It's there, there are books 
about it, with more appearing now, such as the 2008 American Chemical 
Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, with another volume 
appearing this year, I understand. Papers are appearing in mainstream 
publications, and some of the work is quite convincing.

I don't think the solution is a bo

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:




- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy 
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion



On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:




Not true.


Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
inside a hole on the Earth, by example?


One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using
Newton's law of gravity.

Harry


What is Newton's law of gravity?  Do you have a reference?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy 
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Mauro Lacy 
> > Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
> >
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Horace Heffner wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Not true.
> >>
> >> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
> >> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?
> >
> > One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth 
> using> Newton's law of gravity.
> 
> And that acceleration will not conform to an inverse of the square 
> of the
> distance law. Which proves my point: you cannot make assumptions 
> based on
> Newton's law for distances smaller than R(where R is the radius of the
> greater of the masses). That is, you cannot deduct behaviour for a 
> system,with a set of rules that are outside their contourn conditions.
> Which was exactly what I was trying to show.
> 

Hmm two sources of gravity come to mind.
The gravitational acceleration of the earth on the system undergoing fusion,
and the internal gravitational acceleration of parts of the system due
to the system's own mass. Is it the latter acceleration that you mean
does not conform to an inverse square law of gravity?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Blackmail

[Jed Rothwell]

Also, by the way, by no stretch of the imagination would I describe 
this as outrage, a vicious attack, or a threat:


"Those who support his work should pay close attention, if he can't 
be guided through this, it's going down the tubes. The tide is 
turning, CF is becoming respectable, and nothing is likely to stop 
that, but some organizations will survive and some not."


A threat against who? To do what? The author thinks some institutions 
will survive and others will not. There is no indication he intends 
to bring about the demise of any particular institution, or that he 
has the power or desire to do so.


It is kind of nutty to describe this as a threat. Krivit is a drama queen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Blackmail

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven Krivit wrote:

Bottom line, as far as I see it, I don't think there is any way to 
report ugly facts without experiencing some kind of blowback.


The facts you have reported lately are not ugly. They are trivial, or 
private and unrelated to cold fusion, or imaginary. You will not be 
subjected to blowback but you have irked a number of people, and you 
will probably be ignored in the future.


Note I said "irked." Not "infuriated," or "deeply upset." You seem to 
imagine that people have it in for you, or that my messages here are 
filled with rage and that I am reacting "quite strongly." This is 
either wishful thinking on your part, or cognitive dissonance. I am 
annoyed by you. I am enraged by powerful people who abuse their 
positions, such as Wall Street crooks, and distinguished scientists 
and editors who suppress academic freedom. It seems to me that you 
should go after such people, by the way, instead of publishing a 
retired professor's personal medical information.


I think it is bad for your health to get angry at minor annoyances. 
People who do that don't seem to enjoy life. People should drink 
wine, enjoy the garden, watch small children play and try not to 
think about irksome things.


- Jed

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Jack O Suileabhain]

-Scientists speak out re. the President's visit to MIT/ valid concerns & 
comments & viewpoints-Economics is a 'hard science also.'



exerpt:  But the 'pro-science/pro Energy' route is an absolutely good for an 
administration intent on getting R & D projects turned into real and pervasive 
reasonably priced energy technology!  I'm for Obama and I hope he can transcend 
the Monstrous Pressure of the Banking/Insurance international cartels.  Energy 
independence would be for naught if that Banking Insurance Corporate 
Health-Care Parasite is allowed to thrive and control America's real-Energy & 
Monetary destiny.  I really miss Milton Friedman about now.  He knew that by 
'not' throttling hyper-opportunistic banking back by greatly increasing the 
'fractional reserve percentage ' system that hyper-inflation & massive 
hyper-opportunistic banking/corporated parasitism would rampage & ravage our 
future economic stability & viability.  Add toxic asset mortgage bundling as a 
commoditiy etc. and the picture is complete.  3rd-world economic impotence 
looms for the American common-man/woman.  Nobody much listened (enough) to 
Milton, but boy was he ever right!


 


 

 

 

 

*Michael Foster wrote:






Oh Wow! I guess they'll give a Nobel Prize for physics and chemistry now.


That reminds me of a story of a WWII vet, a hero who often wore his medals. 
Someone remarked that the guy seemed to have a swelled head because he preened 
around in public wearing medals. Another vet said: "Listen, I was with him when 
he won those medals. If he wants to wear them in the bath that's fine with me."

If Obama gets health care reform through, does something to fix the war in 
Afghanistan AND allows cold fusion research then as far as I am concerned he 
will deserve every medal ever issued, including the Olympic medal for Live 
Pigeon Shooting.

Anyway, I told Peter Hagelstein to attend this and try to buttonhole someone 
from the administration. Knowing Peter, he probably ignored the message from 
the University Administration.

- Jed Rothwell -
 
 
Jack O'Suileabhain writes: * * * The very best that the nation & world for that 
matter is bound to reap from the Obama administration is a fast track R & D 
push for energy including Cold Fusion in its various permutations and hopefully 
some new & novel approaches relative of cavitation etc & Dark Energy R & D.
 
The planet has granted Barak a pass for the moment on skepticism and that can 
stand to be a very good thing.
 
Universal Health care should come under the current National Health Service 
that we now administer excellently on the nation's Indian Reservations.  This 
would expand employment for Physician/Physician Assistant/Nurse Practitioners 
and support staff to the tune of 'CCC'-era successes during the depression.  
Goverment as a social-contract employer is 'not' communism but rather a viable 
'of the people, by the people, for the people' device which thrives under 
quasi-military type management which we already know how to do quite well.  
Social innovation is good whereas its antithesis is Government Mandated 
compulsory control of citizens private finances by private institutions such as 
the Mega Insurance/Healthcare international cartels which are largely lobbying 
away the American Constitutional freedoms as we speak.
 
But the major point here is that this expansion of the existing 
quasi-military-modeled National Health Service MUST be rendered as TOTALLY 
SEPARATE from any and every form of 'Insurance' which currently is tantamount 
to throwing the population to the greedy Super-bank owned World Insurance & 
Health Care cartel which has rendered(and is further rendering) so-called 
progressive first world countries such as our own to be defacto 
Credit-Insurance slaves.  This has dictated massive inflation and mandatory 
addiction of our population at large to the kind of defacto mandatory 
Insurance-Inflationary hamster-mill 'quasi-non goverment controlled TAXATION' 
(minus any protective representation).  
 
Andrew Jackson would likely use a quasi-anti-trust-busting policy to separate 
National Banks from any &/every connection to Insurance & health care which has 
turned a 'people-serving' national-credit guardian banking system into a 
monstous plague of fiscal parasitism and perpetrating an ever expanding 
economic slavery upon the populous.  JFK's Jacksonian attempts to reign in 
world bank serving national banks ended fatally.  Insurance across the board 
needs to be severely shrunken down and Government's mandating of 
any(whatsoever) compulsory insurance requirements upon any American citizen 
should be Constitutionally banned & prohibited.  Insurance should forever 
remain a voluntary choice among many free & non compulsory choices for America. 
 
 Current corruptly-lobbied-into-place quasi-legal compulsory gov.mandated 
insurance requirements are anathema to life liberty & the pursuit of happiness. 
While the insurance super-cor

[Vo]:EMF and Electric Field

[Harry Veeder]

> Re: correction /Re: [Vo]:The Electric Field Outside a Stationary
> Resistive Wire Carrying a Constant Current

mixent wrote
> Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:19:58 -0700
>
> In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:59:56 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> Well Harry, I've done my best. I have nothing more to contribute.


Meaning you think there is nothing to be gained by making a distinction
between an EMF and an electric field? 

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Roarty, Francis X]

What about the acceleration at the very center of the earth, I know It cancels 
but is time dilated even slower than on the surface or does dilation cancel too?
Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mauro Lacy 
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
>
>> >
>> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Not true.
>>
>> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
>> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?
>
> One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using
> Newton's law of gravity.

And that acceleration will not conform to an inverse of the square of the
distance law. Which proves my point: you cannot make assumptions based on
Newton's law for distances smaller than R(where R is the radius of the
greater of the masses). That is, you cannot deduct behaviour for a system,
with a set of rules that are outside their contourn conditions.
Which was exactly what I was trying to show.

[Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven Krivit wrote:

. . . it's rather fascinating to see the intensity of the response 
to my release of the belief in single-step D+D > 4He as the dominant 
underlying explanatory process of LENR. Really emotional, hostile responses.


Nobody believes in single step D+D -> 4He. That would trigger 
neutrons and gamma rays. I know barely enough about theory to fill a 
postcard, but even I know that!


Here is roughly everything I know about theory:

All experiment I know of that looked for helium-4 found it at roughly 
the same ratio as plasma fusion. That indicates that 2 deuterons are 
transformed into 1 helium atom. But surely it must be a multi-step 
process. I like Chris Tinsley's analogy comparing respiration with 
combustion. The starting and ending products are the same but the 
intermediate steps are different. When respiration was first 
explained, Chris imagined scientists responding: "You are telling us 
that there is fire inside the body?!? That's ridiculous!" But in a 
sense it is true. At ICCF-15 Storms presented a paper discussing what 
I believe is called a multibody reaction, where several deuterons 
participate in the reaction. It seems to be the consensus that 
something like this is happening, as far as I make out from theory discussions.



The irony is that the weak-interaction idea could actually bring 
respect and recognition to the field - and recognition by mainstream 
science. Or perhaps all of this noise I'm hearing from you, Rothwell 
and Storms is about envy and jealousy as a result of the recognition 
of the WL idea.


This is a joke, right?

I have probably written millions of words about cold fusion, but I do 
not think you will find a single message or paper from me endorsing 
or attacking the WL theory or any other theory. On numerous occasions 
I have made it clear that I could not care less about this or any 
other theory. I know no more about theory than I know about Contract 
Bridge or Italian Opera.


Naturally, I see why theory is important to the researchers, but I am 
not a researcher, so it isn't my department. Glassware is important 
to them too, but I don't make the stuff and I do not know a thing about it.


I have edited many theory papers, but only to fix spelling errors and 
ensure agreement of person and number, and other English grammar. 
That, I know about. Speaking of which, Krivit does not have 
"disinterest" in the Wikipedia crusade. He has no interest. He is 
uninterested in it. A judge should be disinterested but if she is 
uninterested she better not show it by falling asleep at the bench.


- Jed

[Vo]:Blackmail

[Steven Krivit]

Hi folks,

A few of you have written to me privately with your concern and care about 
the recent hostilities directed against me and New Energy Times by one 
person in particular.


I appreciate your care and thank you for your thoughts.

Bottom line, as far as I see it, I don't think there is any way to report 
ugly facts without experiencing some kind of blowback. Inevitably, if I 
work precisely and report something important but not pretty, somebody's 
going to be upset. I think that's the sad truth. Obviously what I reported 
recently was not unimportant and meaningless to people  - as evidenced by 
the strong responses.


If anybody has any better ideas on how to report ugly facts, I'm very open 
to hearing them. I decided that the recent facts were worthy of reporting. 
I think I worked very hard to present the facts as objectively as possible. 
The only other alternative I can think of would have been to refrain from 
reporting some, or all the facts.


But if one is fearful of inevitable outrage, vicious attacks and subsequent 
threats such as this:


"Those who support his work should pay close attention, if he can't be 
guided through this, it's going down the tubes. The tide is turning, CF is 
becoming respectable, and nothing is likely to stop that, but some 
organizations will survive and some not."


...and one acquiesces to such threats, or avoids speaking one's mind in the 
future, or sharing one's facts for fear of such attacks, what then does 
that amount to besides succumbing to blackmail?



Steve

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mauro Lacy 
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
>
>> >
>> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Not true.
>>
>> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
>> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?
>
> One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using
> Newton's law of gravity.

And that's debatable also, to a certain extent. See by example the works
by R.T. Cahill in relation to borehole anomalies.

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mauro Lacy 
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
>
>> >
>> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Not true.
>>
>> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls
>> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?
>
> One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using
> Newton's law of gravity.

And that acceleration will not conform to an inverse of the square of the
distance law. Which proves my point: you cannot make assumptions based on
Newton's law for distances smaller than R(where R is the radius of the
greater of the masses). That is, you cannot deduct behaviour for a system,
with a set of rules that are outside their contourn conditions.
Which was exactly what I was trying to show.

Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”

[Steven Krivit]

Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,

For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have 
been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy 
Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from 
the Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I note, even when I made it clear to 
you that I did not care about Wikipedia and had no desire for you to embark 
on your crusade to get it delisted.


But I did not want to participate with you in your crusade in Wikipedia. I 
thank you, and a I hope back then that I did thank you, for your care, 
desire and effectiveness to support New Energy Times. This was the 
situation as of April this year. I do recall you seemed to be a bit bristly 
to me though when I did not want to join you in your crusade; you lectured 
me and argued with me against my disinterest in your Wikipedia crusade.


Sometime after all this, you seem to have completed your focus on 
Wikipedia, you advised me of your interest to develop a "cold fusion" kit. 
You contacted me because of my experience with the Galileo Project, a 
replication effort of the SPAWAR SSNTD and Co-dep expt. Again, I think - as 
I recall - I had limited interest in your project, though I believe I did 
direct you to the laboratory protocol.


You wrote to me in April the following:

"Meanwhile, your work is appreciated; please be careful to not get caught 
up in squabbles, pass them by, just do your job and do it well. It's sad to 
watch the infighting among those who support lenr research, and it, 
unfortunately, reflects badly on the field and makes it more difficult for 
the awakening to come."


In spirit, I agree with your thoughts - and I would completely love to 
focus my entire attention on scientific work. Alas, I have found that 
science does not occur in vacuo; for some strange reason, there always seem 
to be human beings involved.


So in a span of a few months, you have become a staunch advocate of New 
Energy Times and now you are spewing language filled with hatred, 
hostility, and derision and you appear intent to cause destruction.


I'm curious how you explain your 180 degree shift. I'm curious about 
exactly what bothers you. Were you expecting that New Energy Times should 
be more of a PR organization and be soft on snake oil salesmen within the 
field? Were you expecting that we would or could discuss the science, the 
business and the politics of the field without discussing human behavior? 
Or were you so offended that I repeated things that 60 Minutes said about 
someone's health conditions? Or have the facts I've recently published 
caused you angst and disillusionment about your "cold fusion" heroes?


What is it about my recent reporting that bothers you so much? You have 
conveyed a lot of drama and emotion, but you are sparse when it comes to 
identifying any real problems, aside from your judgment about editorial 
perspectives and decisions. If you don't like the editorial decision-making 
of New Energy Times, you  don't have read it. So what's the problem?


I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this field. I know you truly 
care about the end result - a better world and a better choice for energy 
solutions. I'm not going to be able to explain all of the details to your 
satisfaction in an e-mail, or even in a slew of e-mails, but you appear to 
be are under a mistaken belief that individuals who are principal 
researchers in the field are homogenous and unified in their approach and 
philosophy of LENR. This is a myth as great as the myth that Caltech and 
MIT "disproved" excess heat.


Following from the myth of "all for one and one for all" of "cold fusion" 
researchers against the "evil empire" of mainstream science, you appear to 
assume that observers and proponents of LENR should, in turn, all be 
unified in their approaches and philosophy. This may or may not be true, I 
don't wish to argue the point with you, but I will say the obvious - I 
don't agree.  There is the very great danger of groupthink. As is the 
danger with observers such as you and I.


To whatever extent you can see beyond your hateful, mean-spirited messages 
that you have posted here recently, I strongly encourage you to look at the 
"minority" viewpoint of the field which you are so passionately supportive.


I began to hear strong shifts in people's perspectives once I began to 
openly question the reality of "cold fusion" and rather, consider the very 
strong reality of the empirical research independent of a "cold fusion" 
process. It is true, I experienced a change of philosophy a few years ago. 
I began to discuss this openly at the August 2008 ACS meeting.


I quoted former APS spokesperson Robert Park:

"If something you have been attributing to [D-D] fusion is observed with 
ordinary water, it means you've been fooling yourself.“


I quoted LENR Theorist John Fisher:

“In my opinion [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief 
that d

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Harry Veeder]

- Original Message -
From: Mauro Lacy 
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

> >
> > On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> >
> >> Horace Heffner wrote:

> >
> > Not true.
> 
> Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls 
> inside a hole on the Earth, by example?

One can predict the gravitational acceleration inside the Earth using
Newton's law of gravity. 

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

>
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
>> Horace Heffner wrote:
>>> This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion
>>> at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is:
>>>
>>> Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2
>>>
>>> where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2
>>> of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle
>>> separation.
>>>
>>> The gravitational force between two masses is:
>>>
>>> Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2
>>>
>>
>> How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales?
>
> At what scales?  No scale is specified.

Subatomic.

>
>
>
>> Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses.
>
>
> The above should work fine over the volume of any portion of a
> wavefunction. It's Coulomb's law, and the gravitational equivalent,
> not Newton's.
>
>
>> So, to ve
>> valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be
>> greater than the radius of the two masses.
>
> Not true.

Why you say that? Do you know according to which law an apple falls inside
a hole on the Earth, by example?

>
>
>> Because in Reality there are
>> no point masses.
>
> Irrelevant.  Mean forces can be summed over the wavefunctions.

Where on Coulomb's and Newton's laws do we find wavefunctions?

>
>
>> Newton's  law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the
>> point
>> of zero gravity) between two "point masses" lie on the inside of
>> one of
>> the "point" masses.
>
>
> Not true. It appears you are confusing Newton's laws with Coulomb's law.

?? It appears to me that you are confusing Newton with Coulomb.

>
>
>> If this were not the case, the force would tend to
>> infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is
>> something
>> that does not make sense.
>
> When the centers of charge of two wavefunctions overlap, the net
> force is zero, which is just fine.

Which wavefunctions? where on those formulas are the wavefunctions to be
found?

>
>
>> So, it's perfectly possible to think that "in between"(when r is
>> approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different
>> than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the
>> "point"
>> masses.
>
> No, gravity and charge behave normally, they are just distributed in
> space.

You have not convinced me, at all. Your started with formulas for point
forces, and are now talking about distributions in space for those forces.
Are they point forces, or not? Or are they summatories of point forces? If
so, with which criteria are you adding them?
And why should we presuppose all this, including the fact that those
summatories, which are yet to be presented, are statistically equivalent
to the behaviour of point forces?

>
>
>> It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an
>> equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less
>> than
>> a given value.
>
> Where is the evidence for this? If you are referring to spin coupling
> then, again, the electromagnetic coupling overwhelms the gravimagnetic.

Where's the evidence for YOUR assumptions?

>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are
>> you
>> inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the
>> electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it?
>
> Show the violation.

The electron must collapse on the nucleus if it behaves according to the
Couloumb force.
And the protons should escape away from it.

>
>
>> The Coloumb force
>> again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it
>> ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes
>> point
>> charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality.
>
>
> Again, at small distances the Coulomb force is valid but takes on a
> statistical nature, as does the gravitational force between chunks of
> the wavefunction. The effective charge in a volume is equal to the
> probability of the charge being found there times q.  The equivalent
> is true of the mass. Similar ratios, all greater than 10^30, apply.
> Gravity is totally unimportant.

That's according to your statistical interpretation, that's still to be
presented, and is nowhere to be found on the inital premises and formulas
you presented.
So, in the end, you're using a statistical approach to make some formulae
fit in, that is, to try to model the behaviour of something you think
should behave the way you think.

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:26 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:

This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion
at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is:

Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2

where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2
of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle
separation.

The gravitational force between two masses is:

Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2



How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales?


At what scales?  No scale is specified.




Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses.



The above should work fine over the volume of any portion of a  
wavefunction. It's Coulomb's law, and the gravitational equivalent,  
not Newton's.




So, to ve
valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be
greater than the radius of the two masses.


Not true.



Because in Reality there are
no point masses.


Irrelevant.  Mean forces can be summed over the wavefunctions.


Newton's  law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the  
point
of zero gravity) between two "point masses" lie on the inside of  
one of

the "point" masses.



Not true. It appears you are confusing Newton's laws with Coulomb's law.



If this were not the case, the force would tend to
infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is  
something

that does not make sense.


When the centers of charge of two wavefunctions overlap, the net  
force is zero, which is just fine.




So, it's perfectly possible to think that "in between"(when r is
approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different
than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the  
"point"

masses.


No, gravity and charge behave normally, they are just distributed in  
space.




It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an
equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less  
than

a given value.


Where is the evidence for this? If you are referring to spin coupling  
then, again, the electromagnetic coupling overwhelms the gravimagnetic.





On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are  
you

inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the
electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it?


Show the violation.



The Coloumb force
again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it
ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes  
point

charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality.



Again, at small distances the Coulomb force is valid but takes on a  
statistical nature, as does the gravitational force between chunks of  
the wavefunction. The effective charge in a volume is equal to the  
probability of the charge being found there times q.  The equivalent  
is true of the mass. Similar ratios, all greater than 10^30, apply.
Gravity is totally unimportant.









where Gc is the gravitational constant 6.673x10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2), m1
and m2 are particle masses, and r is the particle separation.  Given
the ratio of neutrons to protons is typically around 1, the largest
mass to charge nucleus is tritium, which has 2 neutrons and only one
proton, and a mass of 5.00736x10-27 kg.

The best ratio brgcf of gravitational force to Coulomb force is thus:

   brgcf = Fg/Fc = (Gc * m1 * m2) / (Cc * q1 * q2)

which is clearly independent of distance assuming mass and charge
occupy the same volume. The best ratio is given by:

   brgcf = Gc * (5.00736x10-27 kg)^2 / (Cc * (1.602x10^-19 C)^2)

   brgcf = 7.25186x10^-36

A similarly small ratio is obtained when comparing spin coupling
gravimagnetic vs magnetic forces. It thus appears gravitation plays
no significant role in fusion or in any atomic mechanics at any
distance. This even applies when only neutrons are involved, because
the electromagnetic spin coupling dwarfs both the gravitation force
and the gravimagnetic force.  The force of gravity must only be large
in the interaction of extremely small and thus energetic neutral
bosons, e.g. a photon ball early in the big bang.

Comments?



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

[Jed Rothwell]

MIT links to the Obama visit:

http://amps-web.mit.edu/public/amps/webcast/2009/obama-2009oct23/

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/obama-event.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:BBC article about ITER

[Mauro Lacy]

> See:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/8103557.stm
>
> QUOTE:
>
> "An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being
> threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.
>
> Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the
> experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled. . . ."

They need that money to build the Big Science Machine:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_ask_congress_to_fund_50

Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of “Cold Fusion”

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven Krivit wrote:


Jed,

For "made-up nonsense" that is "irrelevant" and "unimportant," you 
seem to be reacting quite strongly.


You wish. Actually, I consider these reports unimportant. But it irks 
me that you make light of Parkinson's disease and dismiss the 
impositions it imposes on patients. As I said, on behalf of people 
suffering from that, I thought it best to describe what it is really 
like, to offset your fantasy version. I do not like to see you blame 
the patient for the disease. People often do that these days. Saying 
that someone with Parkinson's should respond to you on your schedule 
is a good example.


- Jed

[Vo]:BBC article about ITER

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/8103557.stm

QUOTE:

"An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being 
threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.


Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the 
experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled. . . ."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion

[Mauro Lacy]

Horace Heffner wrote:
> This is to examine the feasibility that gravity has a role in fusion  
> at some distance. The Coulomb force between two particles is:
>
> Fc = Cc * q1 * q2 / r^2
>
> where Cc is the Coulomb constant 8.99x10^9 m/F, the charge q1 or q2  
> of a particle is typically +-1.602x10^-19 C, and r is the particle  
> separation.
>
> The gravitational force between two masses is:
>
> Fg = Gc * m1 * m2 / r^2
>   

How do you know that those formulas are valid at those scales?
Newton's law is only an aproximation. It assumes point masses. So, to ve
valid, that formula has contourn conditions. Namely, that r must be
greater than the radius of the two masses. Because in Reality there are
no point masses.
Newton's  law ceases to be valid when the point of equilibrium(the point
of zero gravity) between two "point masses" lie on the inside of one of
the "point" masses. If this were not the case, the force would tend to
infinite at small scales(when r tends to zero), which again is something
that does not make sense.
So, it's perfectly possible to think that "in between"(when r is
approaching 0), gravity could behave in a manner completely different
than at scales when r is clearly greater than the radius of the "point"
masses. It could behave exponentially, to a point, and reach an
equilibrium afterwards. Or it can become repulsive, when r is less than
a given value.

On the other hand, the same happens with the Coulomb force. Why are you
inclined to talk about the Coloumb force at those scales, when the
electron orbiting then nucleus clearly violates it? The Coloumb force
again has contourn conditions, and could cease to be valid(indeed, it
ceases to be) when r tends to zero. The Coloumb force also assumes point
charges, which again is something that does not exist in Reality.



> where Gc is the gravitational constant 6.673x10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2), m1  
> and m2 are particle masses, and r is the particle separation.  Given  
> the ratio of neutrons to protons is typically around 1, the largest  
> mass to charge nucleus is tritium, which has 2 neutrons and only one  
> proton, and a mass of 5.00736x10-27 kg.
>
> The best ratio brgcf of gravitational force to Coulomb force is thus:
>
>brgcf = Fg/Fc = (Gc * m1 * m2) / (Cc * q1 * q2)
>
> which is clearly independent of distance assuming mass and charge  
> occupy the same volume. The best ratio is given by:
>
>brgcf = Gc * (5.00736x10-27 kg)^2 / (Cc * (1.602x10^-19 C)^2)
>
>brgcf = 7.25186x10^-36
>
> A similarly small ratio is obtained when comparing spin coupling  
> gravimagnetic vs magnetic forces. It thus appears gravitation plays  
> no significant role in fusion or in any atomic mechanics at any  
> distance. This even applies when only neutrons are involved, because  
> the electromagnetic spin coupling dwarfs both the gravitation force  
> and the gravimagnetic force.  The force of gravity must only be large  
> in the interaction of extremely small and thus energetic neutral  
> bosons, e.g. a photon ball early in the big bang.
>
> Comments?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>
>   

[Vo]:Obama visiting MIT to discuss energy

[Jack O Suileabhain]

 
Michael Foster wrote:




Oh Wow! I guess they'll give a Nobel Prize for physics and chemistry now.


That reminds me of a story of a WWII vet, a hero who often wore his medals. 
Someone remarked that the guy seemed to have a swelled head because he preened 
around in public wearing medals. Another vet said: "Listen, I was with him when 
he won those medals. If he wants to wear them in the bath that's fine with me."

If Obama gets health care reform through, does something to fix the war in 
Afghanistan AND allows cold fusion research then as far as I am concerned he 
will deserve every medal ever issued, including the Olympic medal for Live 
Pigeon Shooting.

Anyway, I told Peter Hagelstein to attend this and try to buttonhole someone 
from the administration. Knowing Peter, he probably ignored the message from 
the University Administration.

- Jed
 
 
* * * The very best that the nation & world for that matter is bound to reap 
from the Obama administration is a fast track R & D push for energy including 
Cold Fusion in its various permutations and hopefully some new & novel 
approaches relative of cavitation etc.
 
The planet has granted Barak a pass for the moment on skepticism and that can 
stand to be a very good thing.
 
Universal Health care should come under the current National Health Service 
that we now administer excellently on the nations Indian Reservations.  This 
would expand employment for Physician/Physician Assistant/Nurse Practitioners 
and support staff to the tune of CCC successes during the depression.  
Goverment as a social-contract employer is 'not' communism but rather a viable 
'of the people by the people for the people' device which thrives under 
quasi-military type management which we already know how to do quite well.  
Social innovation is good whereas its antithesis is Government Mandated 
compulsory control by private institutions such as the Mega 
Insurance/Healthcare international cartels which are largely lobbying away the 
American Constitutional freedoms as we speak.
 
But the major point here is that this expansion of the existing 
quasi-military-modeled National Health Service MUST be rendered as TOTALLY 
SEPARATE from any and every form of 'Insurance' which currently is tantamount 
to throwing the population to the greedy Super-bank owned World Insurance & 
Health Care cartel which has rendered(and is further rendering) so-called 
progressive first world countries such as our own to be defacto 
Credit-Insurance slaves.  This has dictated massive inflation and mandatory 
addiction of our population at large to the kind of defacto mandatory 
Insurance-Inflationary hamster-mill 'quasi-non goverment controlled TAXATION' 
(minus any protective representation).  
 
And this dismal spiral in turn 'insures' that in addition to the never ending 
manatory credit inflation of durable goods like shelter, health care, and 
transportation etc. that future generation WILL NEVER HOPE TO OWN ANY TANGIBLE 
ASSETS and the little guys & gals will never pass on tangible assets to their 
heirs.  Tangible assets will ownly be the purvue of the top tier elit.  And a 
socalled Government Insurance Program would merely be piling on to future asset 
hopelessness to our young & yet-to-be-born descendents who we've already 
strapped with an impossible debt load.
 
Is this Marx's formula for the fall of America's once sterling promise a la' 
Adam Smith that everyone could 'truely posses and control his or her slice of 
the pie?'  
 
Political Scientists oft point out that Marx's ideas of 'evolution to 
communism' were screwed up in Russia because they skipped the necessary first 
stage after Monarchy of going to free-opportunity little man capitalism; which 
is quickly fading from the American landscape by the way.  When lecture-circuit 
in America Alexander Solshenitzen pointed out that the American Dream that he 
had always hoped to share was actually on this 'seriously perilous decline; 
then old Alexander 
abruptly censored/canceled from the lecture circuit. 
 
Obama Kennedy National Health Care as a Mandatory Insurance scam would be 
disasterous for American. -JO- But 'pro-science/pro Energy' absolutely!  I'm 
for Obama and I hope he can transcend the Monstrous Pressure of the 
Banking/Insurance international cartels. 
  
_
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on 
Facebook.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_2:092009