Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
Thanks for this answer! Very informative! On a side note: The shutdownrossi.com site has been deleted. I of course don't know why, perhaps it has been hacked... ;) Wolf Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: Out of curiosity: Has there ever been a scam in which a safety certificate from a big and independent organization has been granted? Interesting question. I do not know much about scams. I do not have a comprehensive database of them. Perhaps such a thing exists on the Internet. But anyway, most of the ones I have read about did not involve any actual equipment. The machines are just a rumor, a blurred photo, or a blueprint that the scammer offers to sell people. There was nothing to certify, so it is not as if a government expert was brought in and somehow bamboozled. I doubt that could happen. Many people say there have been scams involving cold fusion. I do not know of any, and I would probably have heard. I have been approached by 2 or 3 people who found me because of my connection with cold fusion, who I thought were either scammers or delusional. They wanted me to pay money to have a look at a secret machine. These were magic magnet machines, nothing to do with cold fusion. I offered one of them $10,000 C.O.D. for a machine delivered to me and demonstrated on the premises. I never heard from him again. I did not expect to hear from him again. Along the same lines, I have also never heard of a scam that might fool experts such as EK. Every scam I know of would be instantly found out by someone of that caliber. I mean they would take one look inside and instantly see how it actually worked. It would be like trying to persuade an auto mechanic than an ordinary gasoline motor was actually an electric motor, or like trying to persuade me that a sentence written in Korean was actually in Japanese. Abd has sometimes claimed that academic experimental scientists are pushovers. They are easily fooled because they are not conditioned to look for hidden tricks. I doubt it, but one thing is for sure: experimental scientists know as much about ordinary electrical components as any electrician or mechanic does. Someone like EK, Storms, McKubre, Duncan or Miles can glance at any ordinary machine or experiment and tell you what every component is and what it does. These people are, in effect, glorified hands-on mechanics with decades of experience. They have spent these decades mainly finding experimental errors, which are far more subtle and difficult to locate than any trick that a scammer might come up with. No one plays tricks better than Mother Nature. It is not as if Rossi was showing his machine to an insurance salesman or a mass media pundit who has never heard of the difference between AC and DC power. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...
Daniel asks: Anyway, why is big science bad? Had the hundreds of billions of dollars spend on hot fusion and massive particle colliders been put into material science, nanotech, graphene, alternative fuels, etc., we would probably be much closer to sustainable clean energy by now. Putting all your eggs in one or two baskets is just not that likely to pay off. -Mark From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model... Well, they do not have a significance to claim to justify that SM is incorrect. Besides, they are talking about decay rates of mesons, which are bound states of mesons, meaning strong force interaction which is very prone to errors in theoretical rate calculations. In the case of a growing divergence, more calculations need to be done. Anyway, why is big science bad? Without comparing to big government. 2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Researchers at SLAC find too many taus decay from bottom quarks to fit Standard Model http://phys.org/news/2012-09-slac-taus-bottom-quarks-standard.html Muons are generally produced in abundance in such collisions, whereas taus are rare, and it's the amount of them that were produced in the collisions at SLAC that has cast doubts on the Standard Model. Instead of the 20% frequency rate predicted for D mesons, the researchers found a 31% rate (and a 25% rate for D* mesons instead of the predicted 23%). These differences are significant enough to cause pretty serious problems for SUSY. To explain the differences between the theories and observed results the researchers suggest that perhaps another Higgs Boson is at work; SUSY suggests there may be as many as four, though research at CERN is still ongoing to prove that what was observed earlier this year was in fact an actual Higgs. So they are working on justification for an even BIGGER collider to find the 4 new Bosons! Big science is just as bad as government. continual growth, even to the detriment of those which it is supposed to serve. -Mark Iverson -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...
Why not wishing the money coming from somewhere else where the spent money is hundred times bigger for the same amount time, like, saying, from defense? 2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Daniel asks: “Anyway, why is big science bad?” ** ** Had the hundreds of billions of dollars spend on hot fusion and massive particle colliders been put into material science, nanotech, graphene, alternative fuels, etc., we would probably be much closer to sustainable clean energy by now… Putting all your eggs in one or two baskets is just not that likely to pay off… ** ** -Mark ** ** *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:49 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model... ** ** Well, they do not have a significance to claim to justify that SM is incorrect. Besides, they are talking about decay rates of mesons, which are bound states of mesons, meaning strong force interaction which is very prone to errors in theoretical rate calculations. In the case of a growing divergence, more calculations need to be done. ** ** Anyway, why is big science bad? Without comparing to big government. 2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Researchers at SLAC find too many taus decay from bottom quarks to fit Standard Model http://phys.org/news/2012-09-slac-taus-bottom-quarks-standard.html “Muons are generally produced in abundance in such collisions, whereas taus are rare, and it's the amount of them that were produced in the collisions at SLAC that has cast doubts on the Standard Model. Instead of the 20% frequency rate predicted for D mesons, the researchers found a 31% rate (and a 25% rate for D* mesons instead of the predicted 23%). These differences are significant enough to cause pretty serious problems for SUSY.” “To explain the differences between the theories and observed results the researchers suggest that perhaps another Higgs Boson is at work; SUSY suggests there may be as many as four, though research at CERN is still ongoing to prove that what was observed earlier this year was in fact an actual Higgs.” So they are working on justification for an even BIGGER collider to find the 4 new Bosons! Big science is just as bad as government… continual growth, even to the detriment of those which it is supposed to serve. -Mark Iverson ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp superconductivity
I think QuantumRabbit is a major researcher into changing carbon into iron. Ron Kita On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: What would happen if you took a bundle of moderate length carbon nanotubes that are suspected of being capable of superconducting and place these within a strong magnetic field. The magnetic field would penetrate throughout most of the forest of CNTs. Now, give the structure a few whacks (hits) that cause some of the tubes to contact each other at both ends where before they were open circuited. If some of the contacting tubes now form closed superconducting paths, they will trap the field within and become magnetic once the external field is removed. Perhaps this is a way to prove that they do indeed become superconductors at room temperature. I seem to recall someone using carbon black in an experiment that had them convinced that iron was formed because of the residual magnetic effects and wonder if something of the nature I mentioned is at work. This type of experiment should be tried especially if it demonstrates room temperature superconductivity of CNTs. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp superconductivity This part of the paper held interest for me. *“It may be that the water treatment dopes parts of the grain surfaces with hydrogen and this element may play an important role as has been also observed for the magnetic order found in graphite. To check this we have exposed the virgin graphite powder to hydrogen plasma for 75 minutes at room temperature. The prepared powder shows the same characteristics as the water treated one indicating that hydrogen may play a role in this phenomenon.”* I speculation on what is happening here as follows: The hydrogen is ionized into protons and these protons for cooper pairs. These pairs then form a condensate on the surface of the graphite grains that support superconducting current flow and associated magnetic behavior. A superconductive cable or rope might be formed using a bundling of carbon nanotubes inside a copper or aluminum tube that has been filled with hydrogen under pressure. Protons would fill the inside of the SWNT as a superconducting condensate. Checking this tube for room temperature superconductivity would be an interesting experiment to run. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Excellent find Lou. This gives me some encouragement that I am proceeding in the right direction with my Carbon Nanohorn research. We know that carbon nanotubes, which are essentially graphene sheets, exhibit superconductive behavior at low temps. Further we know that these same carbon nanotubes exhibit ballistic conduction at higher temps even above room temps. Further, we know from research to use CNTs in hydrogen storage, that hydrogen ions/gas at certain conditions would dissociate and stick to carbon nanotube walls and hydrogenate and functionalize these CNTs. Further, we know that CNTs, especially SWNTs, exhibit long electron coherence lengths. Further, we also know that electrons will accumulate in CNT tips and promtoe field emissions. Further, we also know that electrons flowing on a CNT will charge screen ions that are within its charge screening radius (CNT diameter.) Further, we also know that CNTs will carry huge amounts of currents, more than what can be explained by simple electron flow theory - in metals. And finally, we know that superconductivity MAY be correlated to anomalous heat release. Therefore, I feel that CNTs are really the rgiht materials to serve as NAEs. One thing I found interesting was that the phenomena disappeared when they compressed the graphene powder. This indicates to me that this may have something to do with the destruction of the long filamentous graphene nanowhiskers that are associated with the phenomena. These filamentous whiskers appear to be critical to superconductive behaviour. This, of course, is what I think may be happening in my carbon nanotube theory. The phenomena these physicists found may be an LENR phenomena. Oh, I wished I can go back there to the states right now so that I can build my proof of concept reactor. But, in the mean time, finds like these are excellent. Thanks. Jojo - Original Message - From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:46 AM Subject: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp superconductivity Tom Andersen just sent me this new press release on hi-temp 'fractal' superconductivity - Room Temperature Superconductivity Found in Graphite Grains Water-soaked grains of carbon superconduct at room temperature, claim a team of physicists
Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...
S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
[Vo]:Open Source Papp Update
Hi Vortex, Some updates on Papp development.. Which most of you know is a noble gas that is charged (by RF/spark) and drives a piston with an unexplained (?) force. Harvesting the force and residual energy to produce overunity power remains to be seen. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Expansion_Motor An open source Papp Engine based on Bob's design is being built by a 26 yr old whiz named Russ. He has made great progress in just a few weeks-- a cylinder based on Bob's test unit, spark generator, gas system, and more. I'm sure he'll be looking for ideas on how to mix and test noble gas mixtures. http://rwgresearch.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659 Bob is chiming in with feedback, which is great to see. The forum is at 12 pages and is filled with interesting tidbits. Here is a (self-taught?) Dannel Roberts and his visit to Bob's shop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=_zWJNyoFgJM Starting at 22:40 is Robert's theory of how the Papp engine creates a bang... Chuck (a LENR replicator) received his Popper Kit from John. It contains 15 pages of design/build notes and has a signal generator to drive 2 included spark coils. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lFt_q69dxkfeature=plcp Bob Rohner has also produced a few new movies, one warning of the potential dangers of building a popper.. another showing the system running without a coil, dispelling the thought that the coil could be the source of the force, showing that compressed air is not used. http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner?feature=g-user-u All very interesting, but a lot of power is going in (300 joules?) so a lot of work, luck, and miracles may still be needed. - Brad
[Vo]:Bianchini's Test
Have I been asleep? I did a search on my archive here, but couldn't find any mention of Bianchini's test, performed in July. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1 In it, he describes a 6 hour test of the hot cat, which delivered between 378 - 758 kwh of energy from 8.3 kwh of input electricity. That's a COP over 50. Am I misreading this? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Bianchini's Test
Indeed, I was misreading it. the 378 - 758 kwh of energy is energy density. That's per kilogram of fuel. However, it appears that the total energy used was 8.3 kwh and the output was between 2.4 kw and 3.66 kw for the 6.5 hour period, which would mean that the output energy was between 15.55 kwh 23.72 kwh. Craig On 09/14/2012 10:47 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: Have I been asleep? I did a search on my archive here, but couldn't find any mention of Bianchini's test, performed in July. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1 In it, he describes a 6 hour test of the hot cat, which delivered between 378 - 758 kwh of energy from 8.3 kwh of input electricity. That's a COP over 50. Am I misreading this? Craig
[Vo]:Sims
Interesting article: http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9 excerpt: The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game, you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we need to see it. end Not that others have not considered this. For example, in this review by John Walker of Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html excerpt Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check: the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games, randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were hit—check: quantum mechanics. end I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS! T
Re: [Vo]:OT: UFO Fleet Starship Filmed on telescope
Here is my official well-learned opinion about the means or mode of Technology that we (modern-day mankind) are using to interpret or decipher the world around us, and especially when it comes to pictures or images so-called videos It's really only insufficient, inadequate, confusing, invalid, convoluted, misleading, even offensive, enraging, foul, vile, demeaning, disgusting, despicable, etc. etc. Now, all you have to do to get the general idea of what impact a video can have of someone, and, not to (precisely) change the subject, but... The recent video made of the stoned-age people that became enraged when they see or hear of themselves in the act of their animal-like behavior. Maybe it's just coincidental that the stoned-age people simply enjoy throwing stones, clubing/burning people, and/or naturally tend to destroy any everything produced by the modern world. It's really just an issue of a somewhat earlier version of mankind, which hasn't yet crossed-over from the primative tendencies or behavior associated with there-of, to the more evolved Modern Humans which we obviously are. From my viewpoint, these stoned-age people are the real infidels because they are obviously deathly afraid of technology and/or a future that doesn't involve them bending down all day kissing the ground (good by),,, which of course, is where they all, more or less, *know* they're going to end up. Now, all of us more evolved modern civilized humans *know* deep down that When If it comes down to it that it's US or Them (the animals),,, and so, of course, there isn't any real choice At some point, if They succeed in their on-going effort to ses the total compete demise of US, then we'll need asap to we pull ourselves back or out completely, or as much as possible, and totally obliterate their world. Then, and only then, will THEY *know,* (w/o question) once and for all, that our God is all truly powerfull and all knowing, and/or has no equal. THEIR so-called religion, prophets, and/or god will then be All Ah or All Uh, Up In The Air. In a message dated 9/6/12 6:17:27 PM EST, hohlr...@gmail.com writes: However, I have to offer this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlRm87fQaY and one of not so good quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreenv=r0OIxzFJiKYNR=1 and, while I really want to believe, . . . Maybe Loren Heyer will comment? /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Website on LENR Fuel Preparation
Mr. Basgall has responded to the questions below with the followinghttp://lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/09/12/universal-lenr-reactor-fuel-preparation/#comment-74 : RobL: I dont’ know for sure that the gold or the triangle shaped wire would make any difference at all in the LENR reactions. After reading the Celani experiments using the ISOTAN wire from the mechanical view I felt he was on a path to commercialization by the logic using the ISOTAN wire. The process to create the fissures or cracks in the wire he disclosed was causing the wire to become more brittle. Subsequent that the Storms video came out and he described his process in an understandable way in my opinion. He described the cracks and fissures and I have seen those before after using nickel and chrome powder in a special torch to fix damaged hydraulic rods. Since many claims of photon exchanges in the LENR process I thought of how reflective gold was and when I checked it out the melting point was just a few degrees under the nickel and it is soft compared to most metals. When the hot metal droplets hit the cold nickel only a small point will stick to the base wire and when the rollers smash those little cold balls of soft metal the fissures are formed on the outside of the base wire allowing it to keep it’s tensil strength. The triangle shape was the simplest way to grip the wire without damaging the outer fissure flakes. That shape can be gripped easily as it is rotated to form sharp spiral edges which dipoles like to exert fields from. In the Celani experiments I saw that the wires had insulation and were lose so I knew for a commercial product there could be no lose wires so to speak I designed a way to hold the wires at a specific tension apart from one another using eight fuel rods. Thus also eliminating the possibility of cell contamination due to fiber insulation. Also using macro scale logic the Storm predictions, the Celani experiments and the others working with LENR explain many delta exchanges for the electron capture. Many statements of resonance so I figured no limitations let’s acoustically vibrate the wire and possibly a resonance will stimulate an event LENR. This is highly speculative however we are attempting to make something like the physicist theory, a base to start standardization through using commercially available fuel wire. So if we have known facts like Storms and Celani offer, and those known facts are reduced to a standard mechanical form so everyone can use, then we have something to compare. Thank you RobL for showing interest in the LENR fuel and keep picking things apart because that’s the only way we can help LENR develop, “things are logically deduced by knowing what doesn’t work as well as establishing the cause that makes it work”. Round wire is more difficult to focus angles at projected targets. The hydrogen finds the fissures, while loading and unloading and I deduced it may stimulate a LENR reaction to hold the wires taught and vibrating. Robert Lynn wrote: OK, I'll bite Why gold coated and why does it need to be of triangular form? Basically why would that make any positive difference? Adding gold coating is the antithesis of trying to find a cheap fuel, and Celani has been doing fine using round wires - also seems that round that would give more opportunity for consistent processing and for the hydrogen to get in around the wires. On top of which I don't think that you want large thick bundles of fuel in a reactor if there is a positive temperature coefficient to the reaction. Want thin layers with good cooling everywhere to prevent run-way hot spots from forming, or perhaps powder in a fluidised bed where the powder rapidly convects. Doesn't really seem to be adding much to the public knowledge base (unless I missed something).
RE: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update
Thanks Brad, A deluxe popper, indeed ! Even if the open-source part is in doubt, the need for a miracle is not. It will be interesting to see the energy balance, in the end. I hope that Russ will strive to provide that, even if a rough estimate. Otherwise this device may linger in the collective imagination for another half century. One thing for sure - the visuals in the videos are a throwback to 1971, in more way than one. The hat must be his borrowed trademark, since it seems to be worn in all of them. Terry will remember the done: Popeye Doyle and the porkpie hat he made famous in the French Connection. Say, didn't Gene Hackman look almost as old back then as he does now? Is that the inverse of 'ageless'? ... begging the question: is there some kind of weird synchronicity between the Popper, Popeye, and Papp (which Josef himself pronounced as pop) ?... or... that 1971 was shortly after Josef Papp arrived in Canada, aboard a 300 mph submarine: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papp.html Say... is it me or do these strange time-warps have anything to do with the Bak'tun-13 rollover ? From: ecat builder Hi Vortex, Some updates on Papp development.. Which most of you know is a noble gas that is charged (by RF/spark) and drives a piston with an unexplained (?) force. Harvesting the force and residual energy to produce overunity power remains to be seen. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Ex pansion_Motor An open source Papp Engine based on Bob's design is being built by a 26 yr old whiz named Russ. He has made great progress in just a few weeks-- a cylinder based on Bob's test unit, spark generator, gas system, and more. I'm sure he'll be looking for ideas on how to mix and test noble gas mixtures. http://rwgresearch.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659 Bob is chiming in with feedback, which is great to see. The forum is at 12 pages and is filled with interesting tidbits. Here is a (self-taught?) Dannel Roberts and his visit to Bob's shop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=_zWJNyoFgJM Starting at 22:40 is Robert's theory of how the Papp engine creates a bang... Chuck (a LENR replicator) received his Popper Kit from John. It contains 15 pages of design/build notes and has a signal generator to drive 2 included spark coils. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lFt_q69dxkfeature=plcp Bob Rohner has also produced a few new movies, one warning of the potential dangers of building a popper.. another showing the system running without a coil, dispelling the thought that the coil could be the source of the force, showing that compressed air is not used. http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner?feature=g-user-u All very interesting, but a lot of power is going in (300 joules?) so a lot of work, luck, and miracles may still be needed. - Brad attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:New Wired UK article
Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion I've only skimmed it. (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
[Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
At 10:26 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion I've only skimmed it. Lots of Krivit ps : Steven Vincent Johnson already had it up. but it wasn't (still isn't) showing on the web archive.
Re: [Vo]:Sims
so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of simulation? harry On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting article: http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9 excerpt: The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game, you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we need to see it. end Not that others have not considered this. For example, in this review by John Walker of Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html excerpt Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check: the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games, randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were hit—check: quantum mechanics. end I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS! T
Re: [Vo]:Sims
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of simulation? Too much positive feedback. T
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
At 10:33 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion I've only skimmed it. I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
At 11:22 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing. Deleted already.
Re: [Vo]:Sims
Good read Terry, IMO, these are exactly the kind of observations a contemporary more technically acceptable religion will incorporate into the core of it's philosophy. Strange as this might sound, a lot of these observations appear to be compatible with Buddhist and Zen related philosophies - i.e. where reality is taught to be an illusion. I suspect many of these contemporary concepts will eventually begin to feel more relevant to the younger generation. It will make more sense to them - as compared to paying lip-service to another story about morals, whose foundations are based on tribal law, where technology is no more advanced than an oil lamp. Old religions will eventually be discarded. We will upgrade to newer more contemporary versions. Harry follows up with: so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of [the] simulation? I'm reminded of Star Trek TNG. There was a series of episodes involving the Holodeck where Data, wanting to play Sherlock Holmes assembled the personification of Sherlock's nemesis, professor Moriarty, in order to make the game more challenging. However, what Data didn't anticipate was the fact that he made Moriarty so complex (and real) that his foe eventually became self-aware of the fact that he was in a holodeck simulation. Needless to say, Moriarty, was pissed off when he discovered this. Moriarty retaliated by finding a way to hook into the guts of the Star Ship as a way to threaten the lives of everyone as a means to get himself out of his virtual photon predicament. This adventure resulted in several follow-up episodes where the principal Star Trek characters eventually figured out a way for Moriarty to escape his holodeck confines. However, what they actually ended up doing was transfer the personification of the professor to a larger holodeck simulation computer, one possessing oodles of additional memory so that Moriarty could begin living a richer more-fuller life. Perhaps an appropriate koan a contemporary master might give his students to ponder would be: Is God an atheist? Perhaps that's a question Professor Moriarty might care to ask Data. Lots of interesting philosophical conundrums here worth contemplating! PS: When we look at ourselves in the mirror, perhaps we closer to perceiving the essence of reality than we might think! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing. Deleted already. Like I sez, you got no business in Wikipedia. I mean, what? -- are you * asking* to be collapsed and arbitrated? Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay on their toes! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing. Deleted already. Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay on their toes! 2 minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzeroldid=512455124
Re: [Vo]:OT: UFO Fleet Starship Filmed on telescope
From Lorenheyer: ... Then, and only then, will THEY *know,* (w/o question) once and for all, that our God is all truly powerfull and all knowing, and/or has no equal. THEIR so-called religion, prophets, and/or god will then be All Ah or All Uh, Up In The Air. ... IMO, discussions pertaining to prove which god is the only one and true god are doomed. Under the circumstances it is better to be an atheist.Perhaps that's what many stalwart fundamentalists end up doing in a future life - as a practical way of balancing their books. ;-) Strange as it might sound for me to say this but I would recommend we tone down further discussion pertaining to the recent unfortunate You-Tube infidel matter. We are witnessing ancient Tribal Law clashing with the more modern laws of Civilization. There is bound to be some conflict. The transition is painful for everyone, on both sides of the fence. We do not need to fan the flames anymore than they already have been fanned. It is not wise to blithly hand over to a bunch of hot-heads additional excuses than the ones they have already managed to manufacture out of seeds of ignorance as recently depicted on You Tube. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Miley Patent
It is all about the way it is written, a patent examination based on LENR application alone might or might have been rejected, but by including it in a list alongside more mainstream applications, and concentrating on material processing side they have found a way to get it through without as much difficulty, that is a relatively way to skin the cat, and I believe Celani is doing something similar. The patent examination process is rather arbitrary in most cases (for example vast numbers of ridiculously obvious phone and software patents in last 20 years). On 12 September 2012 21:24, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Isn't this sort of big deal? Not so much because of what the patent covers, but because the USPTO actually granted it? Claim 11, for example, specifically mentions charged particles and x-rays. Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps the P.O. has changed its policy. Maybe not . . . In the past, a few patents such Patterson's got through on a technicality. I do not know what happened here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
At 12:31 PM 9/14/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Like I sez, you got no business in Wikipedia. I mean, what? -- are you asking to be collapsed and arbitrated? Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay on their toes! I warned them in Talk that there was a wired article : 17:52 Edited the lede : 18:18 Deleted : 18:20 2 minutes!!!
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
From James: Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay on their toes! 2 minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzeroldid=512455124 Wow! That's just amazing! What dedication! CSICOP should take notes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Miley Patent
I will ask David French what he thinks about this patent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article / Wiki
At 12:47 PM 9/14/2012, James Bowery wrote: 2 minutes: I've got to learn to scroll before I post. btw The Lede currently ends with an extended quoted from Ugo Bardi (From March) Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence, noting contradictory claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of Gamma radiation, the location of a supposed factory in Florida, or not in the United States at all and the fact that some of his supporters are apparently deserting him, said ...the E-Cat has reached the end of the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely, it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it belongs. http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012/03/sinking-of-e-cat.html I managed to change some of his most vehement supporters to some of his supporters -- but when I pointed out that some of the supposed deserters had rejoined I was accused of doing original research. My summary of Wired .. which I put after the Bardi quote was : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzerdiff=512454940oldid=512429729 In a 14 September 2012 article in Wired UK David Hambling reviews the current situation of the E-Cat and of LENR in general. He draws attention to reports made by Rossi at a convention in Zurich concerning a new, prototype hot E-Cat, and to the fact that some investors have withdrawn because they could not replicate Rossi's results of that prototype. He quotes Sterling Allen as reporting that a 1MW E-Cat to be delivered in the next few months may be available for inspection. He continues by reviewing the status of other potential competitors of the E-Cat, and describes some encouraging results from a recent Cold Fusion conference in Korea. Finally, he notes that The field is looking less like the domain of tinkering eccentrics; increasingly it seems to be getting taken seriously as a business proposition., and quotes a NASA/Boeing study as concluding that LENR technology is potentially game-changing to not just aviation, but the worldwide energy mix as well. This technology should be followed to determine feasibility and potential performance.
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
I do hope someone like the esteemed Mr. Lomax is documenting this Wiki editing behavior. I think a book discussing the pros cons of the Wikipedia philosophy would make for a fascinating educational analysis. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I warned them in Talk that there was a wired article : 17:52 Edited the lede : 18:18 Deleted : 18:20 2 minutes!!! That's hysterical. I suppose Wikipedia has some kind of alert system to tell people a document has been changed, so it is not like they watching in real time. Still, they need to get a life! This is why I say trying to reform Wikipedia is a waste of time. Anyway, the Internet is finite but unbounded so we can prevail without Wikipedia. We don't need to win all the Internets -- as the mod expression goes. We need a barrel of m-o-n-e-y for RD. We don't need every mass media news outlet. I think there is more money coming in. I sense things are loosening up. The dam is starting to crack. Regarding that analogy, of a dam starting to break, I may have mentioned this here before . . . *Spoiler Alert* This clip from the movie Force 10 From Navarone shows how I hope things will work out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxYur1sqnK4 This is the end of the movie, so it is a plot spoiler. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium. Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible. 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: The report concludes that LENR lacks verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibility rather than assuming it's impossible. What is LENR? The report mixes PdD -- which it doesn't mention, but there is reference to high temperature pitting which has, I think, only been reported with PdD -- with NiH. NiH lacks verification. PdD reactions have been heavily confirmed and verified. The fact is that LENR is verified. We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is, and we also don't know what levels of heat are being obtained, we only have unconfirmed reports of *demonstrations*, no independent verifications by experts. (Experts have observed demonstrations, but ... it's easy to overlook something under live conditions like that, where the expert cannot control what is being done. Kullander and Essen used a relative humidity meter in an attempt to determine steam quality, which can't be done with such a tool. And steam quality was crucial, as well as the possibility of overflow, unboiled water.) This article adds to the confusion, it does not clear it up. Pseudoskeptics will use the article to shore up their not reproduced arguments. The NASA/Boeing report actually tells us practically nothing about LENR. I.e, if LENR is real, the report tells us, here is a plan to utilize it. It's essentially pie in the sky, because planning how to use LENR when *we don't know what is happening in detail, is radically premature. What's needed is basic research to determine the physics of LENR, and to provide data
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? . . . 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. I agree with your critiques, but this is all you can expect from the mass media. Apart from 60 Minutes and a few others, mass media reporters never do their homework. They never get their facts straight. That is true of other subjects too. Read a mass media account of just about any subject you know well, and you will see that the account is a mish-mash of mistaken impressions. In a sense though, you can't blame mass media reporters. They are trying to accomplish the impossible. They are trying to understand a huge range of subjects well enough to write about them intelligently. I would never attempt to describe all the different subjects a science reporter is expected to cover. If I were ordered to describe things like medical breakthroughs, the details of global warming and atmospheric science, or cutting edge particle physics, the only honest account I could give would be: I cannot grasp this subject well enough to write a balanced, informative description of it. You can't sell magazines when that's all you have to say. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
At 04:48 PM 9/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.coma...@well.com wrote: Thanks to AK for the correct link (which I'd already fixed on the wiki -- though even my comments in talk have been collapsed -- and I'm being threatened with arbitration.) 'Dat's how it woiks at Wikipedia. First 'dey collapse you. 'Den they arbitrate you. You know: arbitrate! By sticking your feet in concrete, and taking you down to the docks for on a long walk on a short pier. Metaphorically. But it is based on what ya' might call Prohibition era rum-runners' best practices, 6-sigma-like, such as how to deal with smart alecs who got no business in this neighborhood, askin' questions what ain't none of your business, see?!? Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked about and didn't see where he was threatened with arbitration, which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, it is where the community enforces arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics. Of course, is the E-cat cold fusion? Wikipedia is a total mess in this area, and the people who knew how to clean it up, following policies and guidelines, mostly have been banned. (Pcarboon, myself, and, sort of, Jed, but Jed, you didn't ever really give a fig about Wikipedia policies. You were simply right most of the time, and blunt about it. Very irritating to the cabal.) There is no way that anonymously published information can be reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, except for its own content. I.e., if there is some newpaper article, say, about some document that is anonymously published, and somehow it could be established that some particular page showed the document itself, and nobody was contesting that, then the document could be used to show the actual document text. However, *interpreting* that text would be prohibited. That's what ordinary reliable sources do. The document, at best, is a primary source. For the same reason, when push comes to shove, primary research is ordinarily not RS. Secondary sources are, if independently published, with the gold standard being peer-reviewed reviews of a matter, or academically published secondary sources. That's what's truly hilarious about the Wikipedia cold fusion article. There is one truly major review of the field in recent years, Storms' paper in Naturwissenschaften, Review of cold fusion (2010) That was a *solicited* review, published by a mainstream and highly reputable publisher. There are many other reviews of cold fusion published since 2005 or so, I counted sixteen. All agree that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. There is nothing in the mainstream journals to contradict this. The skeptical position essentially died, as to any living scientific advocacy. It's all students of the I know better than you or die-hard pseudoskeptic variety mouthing off, at this point, on the internet. The sad thing, though, is that Wired just said a bunch of things about LENR that, though technically correct in some way or other, will reinforce the impression that cold fusion was never reproduced. Which is total BS. What has happened is that variability of results, a known characteristic of the electrolytic PdD approach, has been confused with reproducibility. Lots of natural phenomena are chaotic, i.e., either the conditions are not known well enough to create exact replication, or some critical variable is not controlled. With the FPHE, this is the palladium material, which shifts in nanostructure as it is loaded with deuterium, and which continues to shift with time. But the heat/helium ratio is reproducible, and has been confirmed. The variation in palladium structure does not affect that, it only affects the magnitude of the results, not the ratio. If editors cannot get the conclusions of the Storms review into the Wikipedia cold fusion article, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being violated. And I attempted to confront this, I was essentially topic-banned for it. (By an administrator, violating a series of what I thought were established principles.) I was later site-banned, but only after completely giving up on due process on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee had refused to take the case. Wikipedia process is impossibly cumbersome. One could work for months on getting a single source into an article, and even be supported by an RfC or other process, and then it's removed next month, using the same bankrupt arguments rejected in formal process. And nobody cares, and if you insist, why, obviously, you are POV-pushing. Never mind that a POV-pushing faction has been sitting on the article for years. In a way, they are right.
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked about and didn't see where he was threatened with arbitration, which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, it is where the community enforces arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics. 5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research, the next step is arbitration enforcement Of course, is the E-cat cold fusion? Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research are of no relevence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Since the very first line says The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR is definitely allowable. Alanf777 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is a bit crazy. I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading. One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is that both sides are crazy. The physics community is crazy because they should know what the scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory. The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump to conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed. This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/ There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive amounts of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and without producing harmful residue or emissions. There have been many pet names given, but we think this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, we call it the New Fire. Problem is, the massive amounts of energy haven't been confirmed, if by massive we mean commercial level, which is the implication. This student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand the difference between hope and knowledge. We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's very clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent confirmations of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on this list, has claimed that the certification established power levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He claimed that this was clear proof. However, those levels would almost certainly be simply what the inventor claimed, they were not the result of tests. The device was being certified to be able to handle up to 200 KW input, and 1 MW output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5. But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that belief, and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it confirms it. The student has: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you the tests being carried out and the results published live, we want to leave no shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to get behind this revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits. I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world. I would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is confirmed and solidly established, from what is rumor and report. This student has no doubt that there are real, almost-ready technologies, he gives us a list: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4VK82MngcCelani's Wire Reactor, Can clearly show that the active component produces way more energy than can be explained by conventional means, it is economical to reproduce the equipment and has scaleability and wide areas for improvement and further study, things that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0Celani himself welcomes. * http://world.std.com/%7Emica/jet.htmlJet Energy NANOR, Using different technology, this can show large energy gains in a small package, is easy to transport and to run long term standardised tests. * http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin Energy Boiler, They could provide a number of small test configurations for replication. * http://www.ecat.com/Leonardo Corporations' E-Cat, A number of these could be distributed to qualified testing bodies. There are other potential candidates such as http://www.defkalion-energy.com/Defkalion Green Technologies, however the experiments need to be supplied easily and reliably run for over two weeks. None of these have been confirmed. Jet's NANOR is the most open product mentioned. Commercial feasibility for the NANOR has not been established. It's a research tool, using the well-known PdD approach. The others are all NiH, which has not been adequately confirmed. Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still undisclosed details, if I'm correct. If we could raise enough money, and had not achieved our primary aim by using another candidate, we would be keen to purchase a Leonardo Corporation 1MW gas initiated unit as these are ready for purchase and place it in say a war veterans hydrotherapy based rehabilitation centre. If E-Cats are available commercially, it's all over. They will either work or not work. If they work, there is no need for some additional demonstration. If they don't work, what then? This student assumes that the product works and is reliable. Reliability, especially, is precisely what has not been demonstrated. However, the other side: We have 3 aims * Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire * Once shown, help develop peoples
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
At 03:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever). I'm now getting my feet wet in Cold Fusion ... let's see how quick THEY are. (Some of the players are the same).
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Problem is, the massive amounts of energy haven't been confirmed, if by massive we mean commercial level, which is the implication. I do not see that implication. To me, massive amounts of energy refers to energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For example, 50 MJ from a few grams of cathode material plus water. That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about in this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry. The commercial levels of heat reportedly produced by Rossi are not massive. Not by commercial standards. They are ordinary: 12 kW continuing for several hours, or 500 kW running for about a day. If Rossi had produced 200 MW, *that* would be massive. I quibble with some of the other assertions in this message, but I will not go into detail. I think many claims are better established than Lomax thinks they are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
At 08:09 PM 9/14/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Problem is, the massive amounts of energy haven't been confirmed, if by massive we mean commercial level, which is the implication. I do not see that implication. To me, massive amounts of energy refers to energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For example, 50 MJ from a few grams of cathode material plus water. You may look at it that way, but the site has: this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, High energy density, which is what you are talking about, doesn't replace fire if that energy density is not reliable. If high energy density can be reliably created and sustained for substantial periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be that. That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about in this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry. High energy density has been confirmed, but transiently. To be what this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but reliable. We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and sustained at adequate levels for commercial application. The existence of LENR, scientifically, is only a step toward that further development. The commercial levels of heat reportedly produced by Rossi are not massive. Not by commercial standards. They are ordinary: 12 kW continuing for several hours, or 500 kW running for about a day. If Rossi had produced 200 MW, that would be massive. Indeed. None of the Rossi demonstrations have shown what would be necessary. I quibble with some of the other assertions in this message, but I will not go into detail. I think many claims are better established than Lomax thinks they are. Perhaps. However, I'm taking a strong stand for supporting what is confirmed, as distinct from what has merely been claimed or that is the subject of isolated reports. LENR is confirmed, and that includes confirmation of high energy density, but not reliable high energy density. Know of any exceptions? The claims of Rossi et al are not even confirmed as to high power output for short periods, much less long periods. Imagine a 1 MW plant that actually works. But, uh, it only works for a day. Then the modules fail. How long is enough? I've claimed that Rossi could have applied for patents, and immediately started selling E-Cats for investigational use. If those worked for a day, it would be great! He'd also sell the fuel. For investigational use, reliability is actually not necessary, as long as one discloses what one is actually selling and does not misrepresent it. The same would be true for any of Rossi's competitors, if they actually have something. Sell it! But greed does have a way of trumping other approaches. Secrecy is believed to be necessary. Selling an investigational product would allow others to investigate the field! Somebody else might come up with something better! And that possibility is actually why patents are issued. To allow others to improve products, to build on them, to encourage inventors to share what they have invented.
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
Just propose the admin a bet : If you are so sure that LENR is false, bet your administrative Tenure on tha fact that LENR is false... If it became true, you are fired. In exchange I remove my edit. If I'm proved wrong, with I'm fired or if you can safely fear that LENR is true, just accept the controversies... and you can add to frighten him: anyway if you are proven wrong soon, and you refuse to bet, I will ask your revokation for bias but are they anonymous ? 2012/9/14 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing. Deleted already. Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay on their toes! 2 minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzeroldid=512455124
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
*We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.* Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR experimental references down through the years. This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the Rothwell LENR library. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium. Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible. 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: The report concludes that LENR lacks verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibility rather than assuming it's impossible. What is LENR?
