[Vo]:Coronal Cavity Sphere Deflects Solar Eruption

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

FYI:

 

Coronal Cavity Sphere Deflects Solar Eruption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgs4QUNzZfI

 

-mark

Re: [Vo]:MY WAY TO TRUTH IN LENR

[Peter Gluck]

Thank you!

The Problem Solving Rules are here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/02/problem-solving-quasi-desperate-appeal.html

On the Blog the Rules appear in 19 languages
but some "great" languages as Japanese, Arabic, the languages of India
missing. Still trying.

Peter

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > From: "Peter Gluck" 
> > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:52:44 AM
> > Subject: [Vo]:MY WAY TO TRUTH IN LENR
> > Dear Colleagues, I have published a synthesis, summary presentation
> > of the evolution of my understanding of LENR:
> >
> > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-way-to-lenr-truth.html
>
> An interesting progression (I haven't read all the links yet. I
> particularly enjoyed
> THE CONCEPT OF “MISCOVERY” AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR LENR
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/concept-of-miscovery-and-what-it-means.html
> )
>
> I looked at
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/solving-insoluble-problems.htmlbut 
> couldn't find a list of your "Rules".
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[Axil Axil]

Did you utilize a high pressure hydrogen envelope? Did you test for
transmutation? I doubt that an air envelope will give positive results in
terms of anomalous energy production. But that is just a guess.




On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM,  wrote:

> Several years ago I tried Titanium Oxide Nano powder.  I got a free sample
> in a jar, I forget from where.  I sent sparks through the powder it at near
> vacuum to a pressure of one atm.  I only got smelly dust.
>  No anomalous energy.
>
>  Frank Z
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ecat builder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 11:25 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion
>
>  Jojo,
>
> It seems like one should do the trick--DGT seemed to be just jolting their
> experiment to get an increased output--perhaps just to disassociate the H2.
> But.. One big missing data point is from you: what have you tried, what has
> worked, and what hasn't. I think once we get a reproducible NiH LENR
> project that produces something real, fine tuning it with another spark
> plug, voltage, pressure, heating element, etc. would be much easier.
> But I think one spark plug should be effective.. as it sure looked like
> DGT was just sparking their reactor very briefly to get it to heat up.
>
>
> There is an interesting thread on dust fusion on Talk-Polywell:
>
> http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3531&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
> Seems to me an easy way to replicate the transmutation of elements using
> low power.
> It includes links to video, replication attempts, and some good discussion
> and speculation.
> My video of me nearly blowing up my microwave is posted there.
>
> - Brad
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> > After reading the entire paper front to back, I am overwhelmed by the
> > complexity of his experimental setup.  Seems too complex and finnicky to
> be
> > scalable for commericial applications.
> >
> > Although looking at his setup reminds me of DGT cylindrical reactor.
> > Specifically, it reminds me of the 2 spark plugs on both ends.  I have
> been
> > pondering a lot on how DGT might be using the 2 spark plugs.  It seems
> to me
> > that 2 spark plug arranged in that fashion would be insufficient to
> ionize a
> > substantial amount of carbon nanopowders (Assuming DGT uses nanocarbon
> like
> > Egely.)  I am also at a lost in understanding how it can help create some
> > mixing.
> >
> > I wonder if DGT is using the spark plugs to cause oscillations within the
> > chamber like I first originally speculated although it seems to me that
> the
> > power levels imparted by the spark plugs would be too small for such a
> task,
> > the reactor chamber being huge.  In my spark reactor, my volumes are
> small
> > and I take advantage of thermosiphon so I can concieve of a way to create
> > turbulence with a single spark plug.
> >
> > What are your thought on my comments above?  Am I correct in assuming
> that
> > turbulence inside the reactor is important?  It seems that Egely is going
> > for oscillations rather than turbulence.
> >
> > How does one create carbon nanopowder plasma on such a large reactor
> chamber
> > volume like DGT's reactor?  It appears to me that 2 spark plugs are too
> > small for the task.
> >
> > Any thoughts you may have is appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jojo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Axil Axil
> > To: vortex-l
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:37 AM
> > Subject: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion
> >
> > Nano dust fusion
> >
> >
> http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf
> >
> > Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may
> not
> > be too far off the mark.
> >
> > His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma
> > made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its
> > simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest
> > temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.
> >
> > I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired
> by
> > the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.
> >
> > First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to
> a
> > spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more
> > electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a
> > microwave.
> >
> > Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this
> metal
> > will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The use
> of
> > zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high melting
> > temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation associated
> with
> > the nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton surface charge.
> >
> > I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting
> > temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with
> carbon,
> > a very hot plasma temp

Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[fznidarsic]

Several years ago I tried Titanium Oxide Nano powder.  I got a free sample in a 
jar, I forget from where.  I sent sparks through the powder it at near vacuum 
to a pressure of one atm.  I only got smelly dust.  No anomalous energy.


Frank Z



-Original Message-
From: ecat builder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion


Jojo, 

It seems like one should do the trick--DGT seemed to be just jolting their 
experiment to get an increased output--perhaps just to disassociate the H2. 
But.. One big missing data point is from you: what have you tried, what has 
worked, and what hasn't. I think once we get a reproducible NiH LENR project 
that produces something real, fine tuning it with another spark plug, voltage, 
pressure, heating element, etc. would be much easier. 
But I think one spark plug should be effective.. as it sure looked like DGT was 
just sparking their reactor very briefly to get it to heat up. 


There is an interesting thread on dust fusion on Talk-Polywell:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3531&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Seems to me an easy way to replicate the transmutation of elements using low 
power.
It includes links to video, replication attempts, and some good discussion and 
speculation.
My video of me nearly blowing up my microwave is posted there. 

- Brad


On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> After reading the entire paper front to back, I am overwhelmed by the
> complexity of his experimental setup.  Seems too complex and finnicky to be
> scalable for commericial applications.
>  
> Although looking at his setup reminds me of DGT cylindrical reactor. 
> Specifically, it reminds me of the 2 spark plugs on both ends.  I have been
> pondering a lot on how DGT might be using the 2 spark plugs.  It seems to me
> that 2 spark plug arranged in that fashion would be insufficient to ionize a
> substantial amount of carbon nanopowders (Assuming DGT uses nanocarbon like
> Egely.)  I am also at a lost in understanding how it can help create some
> mixing.
>  
> I wonder if DGT is using the spark plugs to cause oscillations within the
> chamber like I first originally speculated although it seems to me that the
> power levels imparted by the spark plugs would be too small for such a task,
> the reactor chamber being huge.  In my spark reactor, my volumes are small
> and I take advantage of thermosiphon so I can concieve of a way to create
> turbulence with a single spark plug.
>  
> What are your thought on my comments above?  Am I correct in assuming that
> turbulence inside the reactor is important?  It seems that Egely is going
> for oscillations rather than turbulence.
>  
> How does one create carbon nanopowder plasma on such a large reactor chamber
> volume like DGT's reactor?  It appears to me that 2 spark plugs are too
> small for the task.
>  
> Any thoughts you may have is appreciated.
>  
>  
>  
> Jojo
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Axil Axil
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:37 AM
> Subject: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion
>
> Nano dust fusion
>
> http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf
>
> Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may not
> be too far off the mark.
>
> His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma
> made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its
> simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest
> temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.
>
> I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired by
> the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.
>
> First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to a
> spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more
> electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a
> microwave.
>
> Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this metal
> will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The use of
> zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high melting
> temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation associated with
> the nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton surface charge.
>
> I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting
> temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with carbon,
> a very hot plasma temperature will increase operational reactor hydrogen
> envelope temperatures to the highest turbo generation efficiencies possible.
>
> Third, replace the air with a high pressure hydrogen envelope with the
> highest pressure possible.
>
> Some of my reactions to important parts of Dr. George Egely narrative:
>
> On page 6:
>
> My theory of cold fusion centers on charge concentration as the primary
> mechanism for shilding the coulumb barrier.
>
> In support of

RE: [Vo]:No More "Anticipation"

[Robert Leguillon]

On the contrary, Heinz may love the idea. The faster the ketchup escapes, the 
more likely you are to "overpour." When that occurs, the 66 servings per bottle 
become, in practice, substantially fewer. This means the bottle will need 
replaced more frequently, and Heinz sells more ketchup.

Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:15:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No More "Anticipation"
From: cheme...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Heinz will not be excited either:

A serving size of Heinz ketchup is 1 tablespoon, according to the nutrition 
label. The number of servings in a bottle of ketchup varies based on bottle 
size. For example, a 40-oz. bottle of ketchup contains about 66 servings. 

It is estimated that this technology will save up to 2 tablespoons per 40 oz. 
bottle thus stretching a bottle of ketchup 3% longer and reducing Heinz's 
revenue by $350 Milion annually...




On Monday, May 28, 2012, Eric Walker  wrote:

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:




WTF! WOW!!
Somehow they took ketchup, which is fine enough but not quite as good as its 
reputation, and made it look utterly unpalatable.   When it comes to food, 
presentation is important.  I wonder whether it will take a younger generation 
that hasn't seen ketchup in normal bottles before something like this will 
catch on.



Eric


  

[Vo]:RE: Water fueled electric generator

[Mark Goldes]

Mike,

An American who returned to Vietnam after obtaining 36 U.S. Patents for Hewlett 
Packard and Kodak has invented a water fueled fuel cell. An article link 
appeared on vortex some months ago.

It uses either fresh or salt water. A 50 watt unit has been demonstrated. 2 kW 
and 2.4 kW cells have been made. His name is Nguyen Chanh Khe, Ph.D. His work 
is greeted in a manner similar to Mills or LENR.

A 2 kW home generator is apparently nearing production with a price set at 
$1,600 USD and will only be sold in Vietnam for now.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Mike Carrell [mi...@medleas.com]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

Robert,
Your skepticism is understandable, especially if you have not done your 
homework to follow Mills as I have. The investors are “qualified” [read 
wealthy] or corporations who can afford long shots. Mills’ production of 
journal papers and a book of epic  scope are notable, but the proof is in the 
product. Nobody in the energy field has reliably used water as a fuel to 
produce electricity directly. This is accomplished; read the Validation reports 
on the website.  Scale-up may have its problems.

Mike Carrell

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

As I understand it Blacklight has an exceptionally high Promises:Products ratio 
over the first 20 years of their existence, and have burned through an enormous 
amount of money from investors (no doubt hurting a fair number of people and 
careers for those that believed in them).  Does this latest release represent a 
significant change from their business modus operandi?  Is there any reason why 
we should have greater faith in their ability to deliver on current promises 
than those of years past?  Or is this another Paul Moller like operation?

Put another way; is there anyone in the collective who would invest a 
significant portion of their wealth into Blacklight?
On 28 May 2012 17:39, Mike Carrell 
mailto:mi...@medleas.com>> wrote:
Blacklightpower has posted a major release of the IHT cell [Catalyst induced 
Hydrino Transition]. Peter Gluck has posted a link to a 89-page paper at the 
site detailing the CHIT cell chemistry and operation. I will list below 
features warranting attention by members of this group:


1.   The cell generates electricity directly, without a thermal cycle.

2.   The fuel is water vapor produced by bubbling argon through water.

3.   The end products are hydrinos [H in the H(1/4) state], electricity , 
and oxygen

4.   No pollution

5.   No scarce or costly materials

6.   Adaptable to volume manufacture

7.   CIHT battery of desired voltage by stacking cell plates

8.   Validation reports by six very competent scientists

9.   Current test at a 10 W level, 1.5 kW modules for residential use in 
2013

10.   Estimated installed cost <$100/kW

11.   Privately financed, investment to date ~$60 million

The existence of the hydrino state of hydrogen has been established by multiple 
means which are outlined the website links. A short summary of the CIHT cell 
operation is on p.28 of the cited paper. The cell operates at an elevated 
temperature Which may be maintained by insulation but initiated by external 
power; it is not part of the energy balance.

In my experience of a couple of decades of Mills-watching, I have found 
statements backed up by evidence. Careful reading is recommended. Do not assume 
features which “look like” some other work  “really is” other work.

This is a historical achievement.

Mike Carrell


From: c...@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:c...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter 
Gluck
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:10 AM
To: VORTEX; CMNS
Subject: CMNS: CIHT paper

For those interested in hydrinos:
Mike Carrell has found this paper describing
the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'
CIHT Cell:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemicalCell.pdf

Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CMNS" group.
To post to this group, send email to 
c...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.


This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.


___

Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[ecat builder]

Jojo,

It seems like one should do the trick--DGT seemed to be just jolting their
experiment to get an increased output--perhaps just to disassociate the H2.
But.. One big missing data point is from you: what have you tried, what has
worked, and what hasn't. I think once we get a reproducible NiH LENR
project that produces something real, fine tuning it with another spark
plug, voltage, pressure, heating element, etc. would be much easier.
But I think one spark plug should be effective.. as it sure looked like DGT
was just sparking their reactor very briefly to get it to heat up.


There is an interesting thread on dust fusion on Talk-Polywell:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3531&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Seems to me an easy way to replicate the transmutation of elements using
low power.
It includes links to video, replication attempts, and some good discussion
and speculation.
My video of me nearly blowing up my microwave is posted there.

- Brad


On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> After reading the entire paper front to back, I am overwhelmed by the
> complexity of his experimental setup.  Seems too complex and finnicky to
be
> scalable for commericial applications.
>
> Although looking at his setup reminds me of DGT cylindrical reactor.
> Specifically, it reminds me of the 2 spark plugs on both ends.  I have
been
> pondering a lot on how DGT might be using the 2 spark plugs.  It seems
to me
> that 2 spark plug arranged in that fashion would be insufficient to
ionize a
> substantial amount of carbon nanopowders (Assuming DGT uses nanocarbon
like
> Egely.)  I am also at a lost in understanding how it can help create some
> mixing.
>
> I wonder if DGT is using the spark plugs to cause oscillations within the
> chamber like I first originally speculated although it seems to me that
the
> power levels imparted by the spark plugs would be too small for such a
task,
> the reactor chamber being huge.  In my spark reactor, my volumes are small
> and I take advantage of thermosiphon so I can concieve of a way to create
> turbulence with a single spark plug.
>
> What are your thought on my comments above?  Am I correct in assuming that
> turbulence inside the reactor is important?  It seems that Egely is going
> for oscillations rather than turbulence.
>
> How does one create carbon nanopowder plasma on such a large reactor
chamber
> volume like DGT's reactor?  It appears to me that 2 spark plugs are too
> small for the task.
>
> Any thoughts you may have is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Axil Axil
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:37 AM
> Subject: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion
>
> Nano dust fusion
>
>
http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf
>
> Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may not
> be too far off the mark.
>
> His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma
> made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its
> simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest
> temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.
>
> I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired
by
> the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.
>
> First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to a
> spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more
> electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a
> microwave.
>
> Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this
metal
> will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The use of
> zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high melting
> temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation associated with
> the nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton surface charge.
>
> I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting
> temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with
carbon,
> a very hot plasma temperature will increase operational reactor hydrogen
> envelope temperatures to the highest turbo generation efficiencies
possible.
>
> Third, replace the air with a high pressure hydrogen envelope with the
> highest pressure possible.
>
> Some of my reactions to important parts of Dr. George Egely narrative:
>
> On page 6:
>
> My theory of cold fusion centers on charge concentration as the primary
> mechanism for shilding the coulumb barrier.
>
> In support of this concept from Dr, Egely’s text as follows:
>
> Here the more or less familiar rules of quantum mechanics or Q.E.D. rule.
In
> our opinion, strong interaction and “classical” fusion start to dominate
the
> process above a certain power density in the middle layer. Sparking is
> visible on slow motion films. Obviously, the amplitude of oscillation also
> depends on the plasma radius, pressure, and temperature.

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

[Jojo Jaro]

OK Whatever.  This will be my last response to you ever.  You are welcome to 
have the last word and deliver some parting insult or snide remark.


No sense in arguing with Darwinian Evolution fanatics; who's only interested 
in blaberring about things he does not know.  It's akin to arguing with 
Parks regarding cold fusion.



Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would  I 
expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere?


I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great  example 
of meaning created in the mind of the reader.


I wrote about what interests me.

This conversation will be worth, for you, whatever you say it is worth.

To be explicit, I'm declining your request. I might "want" to discuss 
this -- what's "this"? -- if I had a clue you were awake. I don't.


So here I am.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a 
hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the 
thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even  though I 
have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this  topic alive even 
though I and others have given it a rest.


So, make up your mind.  If you want to discuss this topic with me, 
please identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue 
this discussion.  I have a lot of corrections to your allegations  and 
faulty understanding of the issue.




Jojo


- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and  you 
fear that they will "criticize" you?


The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not 
useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the 
hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not  solely 
responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian  Evolution," 
whatever that is.


My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what  we 
"believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of 
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)


There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post- hoc 
estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is  invented with 
a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the  conclusion is 
incorporated in the assumptions.


This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the 
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional 
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your  argument 
has, in fact, been circular.


It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that  discerning 
the purpose of life, the intention, if you will,  requires stepping 
outside the normal machinery of thought and  stepping into direct, 
unmediated experience. You will never get  there through firm adherence 
to any belief. Faith can take you  there, but only a faith in reality 
itself, which, again, I  distinguish from collections of words, 
crystallized as meanings we  prefer.


Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause 
people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic   thread. 
You bring up several points that need a response, to set   your 
fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do   this? 
Let me know and I'll show up.


Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.

Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

>
To: ; 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)



At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your 
question?


Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find   the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for 
Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon 
chance mutations. Random processes never create Information, 
because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate 
information in random output with or without output selection. 
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the 
undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic,  universe, 
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate  very high  levels 
of order with life, normally, for life  organizes materia

Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[Jojo Jaro]

After reading the entire paper front to back, I am overwhelmed by the 
complexity of his experimental setup.  Seems too complex and finnicky to be 
scalable for commericial applications.

Although looking at his setup reminds me of DGT cylindrical reactor.  
Specifically, it reminds me of the 2 spark plugs on both ends.  I have been 
pondering a lot on how DGT might be using the 2 spark plugs.  It seems to me 
that 2 spark plug arranged in that fashion would be insufficient to ionize a 
substantial amount of carbon nanopowders (Assuming DGT uses nanocarbon like 
Egely.)  I am also at a lost in understanding how it can help create some 
mixing.

I wonder if DGT is using the spark plugs to cause oscillations within the 
chamber like I first originally speculated although it seems to me that the 
power levels imparted by the spark plugs would be too small for such a task, 
the reactor chamber being huge.  In my spark reactor, my volumes are small and 
I take advantage of thermosiphon so I can concieve of a way to create 
turbulence with a single spark plug.

What are your thought on my comments above?  Am I correct in assuming that 
turbulence inside the reactor is important?  It seems that Egely is going for 
oscillations rather than turbulence.

How does one create carbon nanopowder plasma on such a large reactor chamber 
volume like DGT's reactor?  It appears to me that 2 spark plugs are too small 
for the task.

Any thoughts you may have is appreciated.



Jojo




 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:37 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion


  Nano dust fusion

  
http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf

  Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may not be 
too far off the mark.

  His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma 
made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its 
simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest 
temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.

  I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired by 
the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.

  First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to a 
spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more 
electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a 
microwave.

  Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this metal 
will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The use of 
zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high melting 
temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation associated with the 
nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton surface charge. 

  I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting 
temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with carbon, a 
very hot plasma temperature will increase operational reactor hydrogen envelope 
temperatures to the highest turbo generation efficiencies possible.

  Third, replace the air with a high pressure hydrogen envelope with the 
highest pressure possible.

  Some of my reactions to important parts of Dr. George Egely narrative:

  On page 6:

  My theory of cold fusion centers on charge concentration as the primary 
mechanism for shilding the coulumb barrier.

  In support of this concept from Dr, Egely’s text as follows:

  Here the more or less familiar rules of quantum mechanics or Q.E.D. rule. In 
our opinion, strong interaction and “classical” fusion start to dominate the 
process above a certain power density in the middle layer. Sparking is visible 
on slow motion films. Obviously, the amplitude of oscillation also depends on 
the plasma radius, pressure, and temperature. At the center of the plasma, the 
amplitudes should be much higher than those at the outer wall of the acoustic 
resonator. (There can be the highest amplitude of a spherical standing wave). 
See Fig. 5 for the three layers.

  Near the center of the plasma sphere (middle layer), charge shielding can 
dominate nuclear processes due to the enormous surface charge density of the 
dust. Then repulsing charges of like protons can be overcome by the huge 
negative charge density of the carbon particles.

  On the slow motion video records, one can clearly see the appearance of 
sudden small sparks en mass. Then the Geiger counter starts to click, though at 
moderate levels. At present no one knows what goes on in the center of the 
acoustic resonator.

  In Fig. 6 these simultaneous mechanisms are shown as field amplification by 
resonant surface polaritons (Fig. 6/a), direct volumetric polarization by 
electron and ion impact (Fig. 6/b), and charge shielding (Fig. 6/c) is shown, 
where strong interaction rules (again at a different size level) at the 
characteristic size of a nucleon. Obviously the

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would  
I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere?


I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great  
example of meaning created in the mind of the reader.


I wrote about what interests me.

This conversation will be worth, for you, whatever you say it is worth.

To be explicit, I'm declining your request. I might "want" to discuss  
this -- what's "this"? -- if I had a clue you were awake. I don't.


So here I am.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a  
hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the  
thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even  
though I have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this  
topic alive even though I and others have given it a rest.


So, make up your mind.  If you want to discuss this topic with me,  
please identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue  
this discussion.  I have a lot of corrections to your allegations  
and faulty understanding of the issue.




Jojo


- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" >

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and  
you fear that they will "criticize" you?


The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not   
useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the   
hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not  
solely  responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian  
Evolution,"  whatever that is.


My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what  
we "believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of  
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)


There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post- 
hoc estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is  
invented with  a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the  
conclusion is incorporated in the assumptions.


This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the  
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional  
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your  
argument  has, in fact, been circular.


It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that  
discerning  the purpose of life, the intention, if you will,  
requires stepping  outside the normal machinery of thought and  
stepping into direct,  unmediated experience. You will never get  
there through firm adherence  to any belief. Faith can take you  
there, but only a faith in reality  itself, which, again, I  
distinguish from collections of words,  crystallized as meanings we  
prefer.


Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause   
people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic   
thread.  You bring up several points that need a response, to set   
your fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do   
this?  Let me know and I'll show up.


Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.

Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 
To: ; 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)



At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your  
question?


Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find   
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for   
Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon   
chance mutations. Random processes never create Information,   
because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate   
information in random output with or without output selection.   
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the   
undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic,  
universe,  by any reasonable definition of order. We associate  
very high  levels of order with life, normally, for life  
organizes material,  it can be one of the definitions of life.


For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent  
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.


Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator,   
then select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do  
this  detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed  
"make  sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist  
that the  sense that they make fro

Re: [Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[Axil Axil]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5911919.html

For those interested in selecting a protonated nano powder for their the
reactors, the reference patent for thermionic materials will offer
engineering insights.
I think that thorium is a good choice in adding to a proton rich
nano-powder as a compliment to electron rich carbon nano powder.


Very high reactor operating temperatures will be a future discriminator in
the LENR market place due to the potential of grade high reactor heat for
very high electrical generation efficiencies and the efficacy of very high
process heat as a replacement for natural gas in many industrial processes.



>From the reference text as follows:
*In the case of DC cathode applications (e.g., arc-lamps, arc welding),
thoriated tungsten is used almost exclusively. The cathodes are made of
tungsten doped with approximately 2 percent thorium dioxide (W:2%ThO2).
Tungsten serves as the refractory metal-matrix which has a very high
melting point, it is very electrically and thermally conductive, has
reasonably good thermionic emission properties, yet has a work function of
approximately 4.5 eV when pure. Thorium dioxide (thoria) is the most
refractory oxide ceramic material known (highest melting point and lowest
vapor-pressure), and when properly added in small amounts (typically 1 to
3%) to tungsten, thoria aids in controlling the tungsten microstructural
characteristics by "pinning" grain boundaries, thereby inhibiting
exaggerated or non-uniform grain growth. Further, these characteristics,
along with other properties by the thoria, lower the work function of the
metal-ceramic system to approximately 2.7-3.0 eV. The lower work function
enables the W:2%ThO2 cathode to emit thermionic electrons at lower
temperatures and with less localized heating at the tip; thus, the
thoriated tungsten electrode maintains its integrity longer than pure
tungsten would without the thoria additive.*
**
**




On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Nano dust fusion
>
>
> http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf
>
> Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may not
> be too far off the mark.
>
> His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma
> made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its
> simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest
> temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.
>
> I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired
> by the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.
>
> First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to a
> spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more
> electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a
> microwave.
>
> Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this
> metal will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The
> use of zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high
> melting temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation
> associated with the nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton
> surface charge.
>
> I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting
> temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with carbon,
> a very hot plasma temperature will increase operational reactor hydrogen
> envelope temperatures to the highest turbo generation efficiencies possible.
>
> Third, replace the air with a high pressure hydrogen envelope with the
> highest pressure possible.
>
> Some of my reactions to important parts of Dr. George Egely narrative:
>
> On page 6:
>
> *My theory of cold fusion centers on charge concentration as the primary
> mechanism for shilding the coulumb barrier.*
>
> *In support of this concept from Dr, Egely’s text as follows:*
>
> *Here the more or less familiar rules of quantum mechanics or Q.E.D.
> rule. In our opinion, strong interaction and “classical” fusion start to
> dominate the process above a certain power density in the middle layer.
> Sparking is visible on slow motion films. Obviously, the amplitude of
> oscillation also depends on the plasma radius, pressure, and temperature.
> At the center of the plasma, the amplitudes should be much higher than
> those at the outer wall of the acoustic resonator. (There can be the
> highest amplitude of a spherical standing wave). See Fig. 5 for the three
> layers.*
>
> *Near the center of the plasma sphere (middle layer), charge shielding
> can dominate nuclear processes due to the enormous surface charge density
> of the dust. Then repulsing charges of like protons can be overcome by the
> huge negative charge density of the carbon particles.*
>
> *On the slow motion video records, one can clearly see the appearance of
> sudden small sparks en mass. Then the Geiger counter starts to click,
> though at moderate levels. At present 

[Vo]:Nano dust fusion

[Axil Axil]

Nano dust fusion

http://greentechinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/George_Egely_-_Nano_Dust_Fusion_v7.pdf

Dr. George Egely has developed a form of LENR that is uncommon but may not
be too far off the mark.

His process is an unusual one. The essential ingredients are dusty plasma
made from nano‐size carbon particles and air and some water vapor. In its
simplest version the process works at atmospheric pressure, and at modest
temperatures at 1000 – 3000 º C.

I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement that are inspired by
the work of Rossi, DGT, and Chan et al.

First, lose those hollow quarts balls and the microwave in preference to a
spark plug. The plug is more robust and reliable. It will pump many more
electrons into the plasma due to its high operational voltage then will a
microwave.

Second, add zirconium carbide nano-powder to the dust; the use of this
metal will provide more charge concentration potential to the plasma. The
use of zirconium carbide with a work function of 3.38  and a very high
melting temperature of 3532 °C will thermalize the gamma radiation
associated with the nuclear reactions of LENR by using a coherent proton
surface charge.

I love carbide of a transition metals because of their high melting
temperature and their compatibity with carbon powder. Together with carbon,
a very hot plasma temperature will increase operational reactor hydrogen
envelope temperatures to the highest turbo generation efficiencies possible.

Third, replace the air with a high pressure hydrogen envelope with the
highest pressure possible.

Some of my reactions to important parts of Dr. George Egely narrative:

On page 6:

*My theory of cold fusion centers on charge concentration as the primary
mechanism for shilding the coulumb barrier.*

*In support of this concept from Dr, Egely’s text as follows:*

*Here the more or less familiar rules of quantum mechanics or Q.E.D. rule.
In our opinion, strong interaction and “classical” fusion start to dominate
the process above a certain power density in the middle layer. Sparking is
visible on slow motion films. Obviously, the amplitude of oscillation also
depends on the plasma radius, pressure, and temperature. At the center of
the plasma, the amplitudes should be much higher than those at the outer
wall of the acoustic resonator. (There can be the highest amplitude of a
spherical standing wave). See Fig. 5 for the three layers.*

*Near the center of the plasma sphere (middle layer), charge shielding can
dominate nuclear processes due to the enormous surface charge density of
the dust. Then repulsing charges of like protons can be overcome by the
huge negative charge density of the carbon particles.*

*On the slow motion video records, one can clearly see the appearance of
sudden small sparks en mass. Then the Geiger counter starts to click,
though at moderate levels. At present no one knows what goes on in the
center of the acoustic resonator.*

*In Fig. 6 these simultaneous mechanisms are shown as field amplification
by resonant surface polaritons (Fig. 6/a), direct volumetric polarization
by electron and ion impact (Fig. 6/b), and charge shielding (Fig. 6/c) is
shown, where strong interaction rules (again at a different size level) at
the characteristic size of a nucleon. Obviously these are all hypothetical
mechanisms, as they cannot be observed directly.*

On page 23 (b)

*At higher input energy, the sparking region appears, along a mild degree
of radiation – both x rays and particles. (There is a slight radioactivity
in the exhausted dust and the quartz sphere after the power is switched
off, for a couple of days).*

RE: [Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

[Mike Carrell]

Robert,

Your skepticism is understandable, especially if you have not done your
homework to follow Mills as I have. The investors are "qualified" [read
wealthy] or corporations who can afford long shots. Mills' production of
journal papers and a book of epic  scope are notable, but the proof is in
the product. Nobody in the energy field has reliably used water as a fuel to
produce electricity directly. This is accomplished; read the Validation
reports on the website.  Scale-up may have its problems. 

 

Mike Carrell

 

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

 

As I understand it Blacklight has an exceptionally high Promises:Products
ratio over the first 20 years of their existence, and have burned through an
enormous amount of money from investors (no doubt hurting a fair number of
people and careers for those that believed in them).  Does this latest
release represent a significant change from their business modus operandi?
Is there any reason why we should have greater faith in their ability to
deliver on current promises than those of years past?  Or is this another
Paul Moller like operation?

 

Put another way; is there anyone in the collective who would invest a
significant portion of their wealth into Blacklight?

On 28 May 2012 17:39, Mike Carrell  wrote:

Blacklightpower has posted a major release of the IHT cell [Catalyst induced
Hydrino Transition]. Peter Gluck has posted a link to a 89-page paper at the
site detailing the CHIT cell chemistry and operation. I will list below
features warranting attention by members of this group:

 

1.   The cell generates electricity directly, without a thermal cycle. 

2.   The fuel is water vapor produced by bubbling argon through water.

3.   The end products are hydrinos [H in the H(1/4) state], electricity
, and oxygen

4.   No pollution

5.   No scarce or costly materials

6.   Adaptable to volume manufacture

7.   CIHT battery of desired voltage by stacking cell plates

8.   Validation reports by six very competent scientists

9.   Current test at a 10 W level, 1.5 kW modules for residential use in
2013

10.   Estimated installed cost <$100/kW

11.   Privately financed, investment to date ~$60 million

 

The existence of the hydrino state of hydrogen has been established by
multiple means which are outlined the website links. A short summary of the
CIHT cell operation is on p.28 of the cited paper. The cell operates at an
elevated temperature Which may be maintained by insulation but initiated by
external power; it is not part of the energy balance.


 

In my experience of a couple of decades of Mills-watching, I have found
statements backed up by evidence. Careful reading is recommended. Do not
assume features which "look like" some other work  "really is" other work.

 

This is a historical achievement. 

 

Mike Carrell

 

 

From: c...@googlegroups.com [mailto:c...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Peter Gluck
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:10 AM
To: VORTEX; CMNS
Subject: CMNS: CIHT paper

 

For those interested in hydrinos:

Mike Carrell has found this paper describing

the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'

CIHT Cell:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemical
Cell.pdf


 

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CMNS" group.
To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.


This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

 



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:No More "Anticipation"

[Chemical Engineer]

Heinz will not be excited either:

A serving size of Heinz ketchup is 1 tablespoon, according to the nutrition
label. The number of servings in a bottle of ketchup varies based on bottle
size. For example, a 40-oz. bottle of ketchup contains about 66 servings.

It is estimated that this technology will save up to 2 tablespoons per 40
oz. bottle thus stretching a bottle of ketchup 3% longer and reducing
Heinz's revenue by $350 Milion annually...



On Monday, May 28, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> WTF! WOW!!
>
>
> Somehow they took ketchup, which is fine enough but not quite as good as
> its reputation, and made it look utterly unpalatable.   When it comes to
> food, presentation is important.  I wonder whether it will take a younger
> generation that hasn't seen ketchup in normal bottles before something like
> this will catch on.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MY WAY TO TRUTH IN LENR

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Peter Gluck" 
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:52:44 AM
> Subject: [Vo]:MY WAY TO TRUTH IN LENR
> Dear Colleagues, I have published a synthesis, summary presentation
> of the evolution of my understanding of LENR: 
> 
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-way-to-lenr-truth.html

An interesting progression (I haven't read all the links yet. I particularly 
enjoyed
THE CONCEPT OF “MISCOVERY” AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR LENR
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/concept-of-miscovery-and-what-it-means.html
)

I looked at 
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/solving-insoluble-problems.html but 
couldn't find a list of your "Rules".

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

[Jojo Jaro]

First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a hijack 
because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), then you 
continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped 
responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and 
others have given it a rest.


So, make up your mind.  If you want to discuss this topic with me, please 
identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue this 
discussion.  I have a lot of corrections to your allegations and faulty 
understanding of the issue.




Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)


You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you 
fear that they will "criticize" you?


The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not  useful 
here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the  hijacking of a 
thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely  responsible for 
that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution,"  whatever that is.


My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we 
"believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of 
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)


There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post-hoc 
estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with  a 
pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is 
incorporated in the assumptions.


This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the 
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional 
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument  has, 
in fact, been circular.


It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning  the 
purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping  outside 
the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct,  unmediated 
experience. You will never get there through firm adherence  to any 
belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality  itself, 
which, again, I distinguish from collections of words,  crystallized as 
meanings we prefer.


Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause  people 
to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic  thread.  You bring 
up several points that need a response, to set  your fallacies straight. 
Can you suggest a forum where we can do  this?  Let me know and I'll show 
up.


Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.

Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

>
To: ; 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)



At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your 
question?


Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find  the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for  Intelligent 
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon  chance mutations. 
Random processes never create Information,  because information is 
"Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate  information 
in random output with or without output selection.  "Information" is not 
defined here, and I suspect that the  undisclosed definition again 
incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe,  by 
any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high  levels of 
order with life, normally, for life organizes material,  it can be one 
of the definitions of life.


For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent 
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.


Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator,  then 
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this  detection 
well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make  sense" of random 
combinations. And then people will insist that the  sense that they make 
from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that  proves something or other. 
Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah  Code") or the Qur'an from Allah 
("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")


Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.

 If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the 
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.


"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. 
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words,  but 
you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the  second 
set is 

Re: [Vo]:No More "Anticipation"

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

WTF! WOW!!


Somehow they took ketchup, which is fine enough but not quite as good as
its reputation, and made it look utterly unpalatable.   When it comes to
food, presentation is important.  I wonder whether it will take a younger
generation that hasn't seen ketchup in normal bottles before something like
this will catch on.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you  
fear that they will "criticize" you?


The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not  
useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the  
hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely  
responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution,"  
whatever that is.


My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we  
"believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of  
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)


There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post-hoc  
estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with  
a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is  
incorporated in the assumptions.


This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the  
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional  
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument  
has, in fact, been circular.


It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning  
the purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping  
outside the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct,  
unmediated experience. You will never get there through firm adherence  
to any belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality  
itself, which, again, I distinguish from collections of words,  
crystallized as meanings we prefer.


Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause  
people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic  
thread.  You bring up several points that need a response, to set  
your fallacies straight.  Can you suggest a forum where we can do  
this?  Let me know and I'll show up.


Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.

Jojo



- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" >

To: ; 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)



At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your  
question?


Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find  
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for  
Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon  
chance mutations. Random processes never create Information,  
because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate  
information in random output with or without output selection.  
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the  
undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe,  
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high  
levels of order with life, normally, for life organizes material,  
it can be one of the definitions of life.


For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent  
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.


Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator,  
then select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this  
detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make  
sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist that the  
sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that  
proves something or other. Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah  
Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")


Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.

 If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the  
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.


"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.   
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)


Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words,  
but you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the  
second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an  
equal chance as you assume.


The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think.  
Many mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many  
more mutations would result in organism failure. In complex  
organisms, many more mutations would not be viable. Even more might  
be temporarily viable, but would not survive to reproduce. Or might  
only last a few generations, either by accident or because of loss  
of survivability.


And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function  
of the DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an  
organism is, in fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.


That "junk DNA" can be mut

Re: [Vo]:CIHT paper

[Terry Blanton]

In the literature I have read, I have not seen a discussion on how
tolerant the CIHT cell is to impurities in the water.

T

Re: [Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

[Robert Lynn]

As I understand it Blacklight has an exceptionally high Promises:Products
ratio over the first 20 years of their existence, and have burned through
an enormous amount of money from investors (no doubt hurting a fair number
of people and careers for those that believed in them).  Does this latest
release represent a significant change from their business modus operandi?
 Is there any reason why we should have greater faith in their ability to
deliver on current promises than those of years past?  Or is this another
Paul Moller like operation?

Put another way; is there anyone in the collective who would invest a
significant portion of their wealth into Blacklight?

On 28 May 2012 17:39, Mike Carrell  wrote:

> Blacklightpower has posted a major release of the IHT cell [Catalyst
> induced Hydrino Transition]. Peter Gluck has posted a link to a 89-page
> paper at the site detailing the CHIT cell chemistry and operation. I will
> list below features warranting attention by members of this group:
>
> ** **
>
> **1.   **The cell generates electricity directly, without a thermal
> cycle. 
>
> **2.   **The fuel is water vapor produced by bubbling argon through
> water.
>
> **3.   **The end products are hydrinos [H in the H(1/4) state],
> electricity , and oxygen
>
> **4.   **No pollution
>
> **5.   **No scarce or costly materials
>
> **6.   **Adaptable to volume manufacture
>
> **7.   **CIHT battery of desired voltage by stacking cell plates
>
> **8.   **Validation reports by six very competent scientists
>
> **9.   **Current test at a 10 W level, 1.5 kW modules for residential
> use in 2013
>
> **10.   **Estimated installed cost <$100/kW
>
> **11.   **Privately financed, investment to date ~$60 million
>
> ** **
>
> The existence of the hydrino state of hydrogen has been established by
> multiple means which are outlined the website links. A short summary of the
> CIHT cell operation is on p.28 of the cited paper. The cell operates at an
> elevated temperature Which may be maintained by insulation but initiated by
> external power; it is not part of the energy balance.
>   
>
> ** **
>
> In my experience of a couple of decades of Mills-watching, I have found
> statements backed up by evidence. Careful reading is recommended. Do not
> assume features which “look like” some other work  “really is” other work.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> This is a historical achievement. 
>
> ** **
>
> Mike Carrell
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* c...@googlegroups.com [mailto:c...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Peter Gluck
> *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 5:10 AM
> *To:* VORTEX; CMNS
> *Subject:* CMNS: CIHT paper
>
> ** **
>
> For those interested in hydrinos:
>
> Mike Carrell has found this paper describing
>
> the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'
>
> CIHT Cell:
>
>
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemicalCell.pdf
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
>
> Cluj, Romania
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
> ** **
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "CMNS" group.
> To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
>
> 
> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
> Department.
>

[Vo]:MY WAY TO TRUTH IN LENR

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Colleagues,
I have published a synthesis, summary presentation
of the evolution of my understanding of LENR:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-way-to-lenr-truth.html

It is possible that the ideas are in error, however some of
them can be even true. But they are actually radical,
beyond any doubt.
At ICCF-17 we will know more.
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:CIHT paper

[Mike Carrell]

Blacklightpower has posted a major release of the IHT cell [Catalyst induced
Hydrino Transition]. Peter Gluck has posted a link to a 89-page paper at the
site detailing the CHIT cell chemistry and operation. I will list below
features warranting attention by members of this group:

 

1.   The cell generates electricity directly, without a thermal cycle. 

2.   The fuel is water vapor produced by bubbling argon through water.

3.   The end products are hydrinos [H in the H(1/4) state], electricity
, and oxygen

4.   No pollution

5.   No scarce or costly materials

6.   Adaptable to volume manufacture

7.   CIHT battery of desired voltage by stacking cell plates

8.   Validation reports by six very competent scientists

9.   Current test at a 10 W level, 1.5 kW modules for residential use in
2013

10.   Estimated installed cost <$100/kW

11.   Privately financed, investment to date ~$60 million

 

The existence of the hydrino state of hydrogen has been established by
multiple means which are outlined the website links. A short summary of the
CIHT cell operation is on p.28 of the cited paper. The cell operates at an
elevated temperature Which may be maintained by insulation but initiated by
external power; it is not part of the energy balance.


 

In my experience of a couple of decades of Mills-watching, I have found
statements backed up by evidence. Careful reading is recommended. Do not
assume features which "look like" some other work  "really is" other work.

 

This is a historical achievement. 

 

Mike Carrell

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:10 AM
To: VORTEX; CMNS
Subject: [Vo]:CIHT paper

 

For those interested in hydrinos:

Mike Carrell has found this paper describing

the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'

CIHT Cell:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemical
Cell.pdf


 

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

[Vo]:RE: CMNS: CIHT paper

[Mike Carrell]

Blacklightpower has posted a major release of the IHT cell [Catalyst induced
Hydrino Transition]. Peter Gluck has posted a link to a 89-page paper at the
site detailing the CHIT cell chemistry and operation. I will list below
features warranting attention by members of this group:

 

1.   The cell generates electricity directly, without a thermal cycle. 

2.   The fuel is water vapor produced by bubbling argon through water.

3.   The end products are hydrinos [H in the H(1/4) state], electricity
, and oxygen

4.   No pollution

5.   No scarce or costly materials

6.   Adaptable to volume manufacture

7.   CIHT battery of desired voltage by stacking cell plates

8.   Validation reports by six very competent scientists

9.   Current test at a 10 W level, 1.5 kW modules for residential use in
2013

10.   Estimated installed cost <$100/kW

11.   Privately financed, investment to date ~$60 million

 

The existence of the hydrino state of hydrogen has been established by
multiple means which are outlined the website links. A short summary of the
CIHT cell operation is on p.28 of the cited paper. The cell operates at an
elevated temperature Which may be maintained by insulation but initiated by
external power; it is not part of the energy balance.


 

In my experience of a couple of decades of Mills-watching, I have found
statements backed up by evidence. Careful reading is recommended. Do not
assume features which "look like" some other work  "really is" other work.

 

This is a historical achievement. 

 

Mike Carrell

 

 

From: c...@googlegroups.com [mailto:c...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Peter Gluck
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:10 AM
To: VORTEX; CMNS
Subject: CMNS: CIHT paper

 

For those interested in hydrinos:

Mike Carrell has found this paper describing

the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'

CIHT Cell:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemical
Cell.pdf


 

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CMNS" group.
To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.


This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Re: [Vo]:No More "Anticipation"

[Daniel Rocha]

WTF! WOW!!

2012/5/28 Terry Blanton 

> Probably the most important nanotech yet to be developed:
>
>
> http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679878/mits-freaky-non-stick-coating-keeps-ketchup-flowing
>
> Amazing!
>
> T
>
>


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

[Vo]:No More "Anticipation"

[Terry Blanton]

Probably the most important nanotech yet to be developed:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679878/mits-freaky-non-stick-coating-keeps-ketchup-flowing

Amazing!

T

Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)

[Jojo Jaro]

Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people to 
roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread.  You bring up 
several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight.  Can 
you suggest a forum where we can do this?  Let me know and I'll show up.


Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.

Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)



At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.

What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?

Of course,there are strong inference.  For example, if you find the 
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent 
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. 
Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order", 
the exact opposite of Randomness.


The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate information in 
random output with or without output selection. "Information" is not 
defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed definition again 
incorporates the conclusions.


There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe, by any 
reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels of order 
with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be one of the 
definitions of life.


For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence 
requires the input of an Intelligent being.


Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then 
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this detection 
well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make sense" of random 
combinations. And then people will insist that the sense that they make 
from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that proves something or other. 
Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah Code") or the Qur'an from Allah 
("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")


Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.

  If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 
2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.


"There is a God"

"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.  This is 
a random mixture of the same letters above.)


Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words, but you 
have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the second set is 
impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an equal chance as you 
assume.


The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think. Many 
mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many more 
mutations would result in organism failure. In complex organisms, many 
more mutations would not be viable. Even more might be temporarily viable, 
but would not survive to reproduce. Or might only last a few generations, 
either by accident or because of loss of survivability.


And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function of the 
DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an organism is, in 
fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.


That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some further 
process, something active. It might represent something that was active in 
the past but which is no longer active, that mutated out of activity but 
caused no damage because any necessary function was also carried 
elsewhere.


This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about "creation" one 
way or another. What is the real issue here?


What is the difference between the 2 sentences above.  Nothing as far as 
randon chance is concerned.


The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance and, in 
fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were important. The key is 
that I'd set up an algorithm using random letter selection. "There is a 
God" is short enough that I could get this result with fairly little 
computer time, and that's why web sites advise more complex passwords!


What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is not 
"random chance." This proves?


It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce sensible 
words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?


Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code



Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.


Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume yourself to be, 
of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference. Which the intelligent entity 
made up. That's what intelligent entities, in fact, do, they make up 
meaning. It's a useful process, often. Not always. Gambler's Fallacy.



What differentiates the 2 sentences?  It is Information of course.


That's debatable. What information? What I see in the first sentence is 
grammatically corr

[Vo]:CIHT paper

[Peter Gluck]

For those interested in hydrinos:
Mike Carrell has found this paper describing
the configuration and operation of Randy Mills'
CIHT Cell:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/CIHTElectrochemicalCell.pdf

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:"Localized time- space curvature demonstrated from 3 phase alternator powered 666 machine"

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

And it's far more likely -- just my personal impression -- that you don't
> actually know what you are doing. But I'm not inspired to follow you enough
> to find out either where you are right or where you are wrong.
>

I think you'll probably agree with me on this, Abd, but there's room for
all types here.  Some people are clearly knowledgeable in the relevant
fields that are being discussed, they're careful about what they say and
they communicate effectively; others are clearly unknowledgeable and are
willing to go off into wild speculation (I include myself in this
category); and others do not know that they're unknowledgeable.  Somehow,
though, different audiences find different threads interesting, perhaps for
reasons they weren't expecting, and it all works out.

Eric