Re: [Vo]:OT nuclear physicist as dutch prime minister?
Excellent! Anyone with an interesting vacancy (outside The Netherlands) in the field of LENR can send me an e-mail. Next Monday I have my first interviews in Italy. Rob, How are you feeling today? Andre
Re: [Vo]:HOW LOW - ENERGY FUSION CAN OCCUR - CUSP DRIVEN TUNNELING
pagnucco, Resonance tunneling of H^-1 + Ni = LENR catalyzed by C nano-cones, Zeolite 2 dimensional sheet lattice structure and stress cracks in wires are among other successes. Look at A Hydride Anion Trapped In Carbon NanoCone collection by Tron http://nano.clanteam.com/cone.html I envision multiple species in simultaneous phonon oscillation to a cusp creating nano plasma reaction pits. See many references to tiny dots of light reported when active experiments are viewed through ports. C.
[Vo]:Math Journal Accepts Nonsense Paper Generated by Computer Program
Math Journal Accepts Nonsense Paper Generated by Computer Program: http://www.geekosystem.com/journal-accepts-nonsense-paper/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:HOW LOW - ENERGY FUSION CAN OCCUR - CUSP DRIVEN TUNNELING
There is another option, no involving CoE. The energy of two nuclei coming together is not conserved but, is very slightly depleted by strong force interactions (QCD color changes) loosing tiny amounts of mass. In fact this is the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe – well over 99.99% of all nuclear reactions are P+P = 2He = P+P Approximate 10^20 of these reversible fusion/fission reactions are required on our sun before a single reaction proceeds to deuterium. And most of the time that deuterium is stripped back to a proton and an neutron before it further fuses to stable helium. Otherwise, the “fuel” in our sun would have been depleted billions or years ago. It is a small step to imagine that magnons are released constantly during this reversible fusion reaction- up until the point that the average mass of protons is depleted to the point that gluons can no longer hold quarks together, which triggers the rare beta decay of 2He - deuterium. Jones From: Eric Walker pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: The energy of two nuclei is conserved and remains small during the motion through the Coulomb barrier. The penetration through this barrier, which is the main obstacle for low-energy fusion, strongly depends on a form of the incident flux on the Coulombcenter at large distances from it. In contrast to the usual scattering, the incident wave is not a single plane wave but the certain superposition of plane waves of the same energy and various directions, for example a convergent conical wave. I like explanations along these lines -- ones that don't require slamming particles into one another at high speeds. In the end I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being something like what the author seems to be getting at. Two analogies that come to mind: (1) when a large, heavy object hits the water at high speeds, you get one kind of outcome, and when it slips into the water at low speed, you get something else entirely. Or (2), when you don't have a key, to get past a door you're going to have to break it down, but when you have the key, it will open with little effort. There may be something equivalent to an electromagnetic key that amplifies the tunneling probability by several orders of magnitude for a certain period of time. I have no opinion about the details of Ivlev's theory. Eric attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:HOW LOW - ENERGY FUSION CAN OCCUR - CUSP DRIVEN TUNNELING
I think if we look at the composition of our gas giants, which I predict have a LENR reactor at their core, we will get some clues... Jupiter: 89.8±2.0%hydrogen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen (H2) 10.2±2.0%helium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium ~0.3%methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane ~0.026%ammonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia ~0.003%hydrogen deuteride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_deuteride (HD) 0.0006%ethane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethane 0.0004%water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water *Ices*:ammonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water ammonium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_hydrosulfide hydrosulfide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_hydrosulfide(NH4SH) On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is another option, no involving CoE. The energy of two nuclei coming together is not conserved but, is very slightly depleted by strong force interactions (QCD color changes) loosing tiny amounts of mass. In fact this is the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe – well over 99.99% of all nuclear reactions are P+P = 2He = P+P Approximate 10^20 of these reversible fusion/fission reactions are required on our sun before a single reaction proceeds to deuterium. And most of the time that deuterium is stripped back to a proton and an neutron before it further fuses to stable helium. Otherwise, the “fuel” in our sun would have been depleted billions or years ago. It is a small step to imagine that magnons are released constantly during this reversible fusion reaction- up until the point that the average mass of protons is depleted to the point that gluons can no longer hold quarks together, which triggers the rare beta decay of 2He - deuterium. Jones From: Eric Walker pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: The energy of two nuclei is conserved and remains small during the motion through the Coulomb barrier. The penetration through this barrier, which is the main obstacle for low-energy fusion, strongly depends on a form of the incident flux on the Coulombcenter at large distances from it. In contrast to the usual scattering, the incident wave is not a single plane wave but the certain superposition of plane waves of the same energy and various directions, for example a convergent conical wave. I like explanations along these lines -- ones that don't require slamming particles into one another at high speeds. In the end I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being something like what the author seems to be getting at. Two analogies that come to mind: (1) when a large, heavy object hits the water at high speeds, you get one kind of outcome, and when it slips into the water at low speed, you get something else entirely. Or (2), when you don't have a key, to get past a door you're going to have to break it down, but when you have the key, it will open with little effort. There may be something equivalent to an electromagnetic key that amplifies the tunneling probability by several orders of magnitude for a certain period of time. I have no opinion about the details of Ivlev's theory. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Math Journal Accepts Nonsense Paper Generated by Computer Program
It seems from time to time the Sokal affair has to be repeated. Sokal himself has copied MacPherson's Ossian. Starting 1986 I have published a few papers., mainly about technoforia using the pseudonym Yves Henri Prum (YHPRUM is MURPHY reversed). The idea was copied by many. Sokal has done an excelllent job defending science against surrealism. Peter On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Math Journal Accepts Nonsense Paper Generated by Computer Program: ** ** http://www.geekosystem.com/journal-accepts-nonsense-paper/ ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
I've never liked Obama but I did have to give him credit for telling the Israeli government No to starting WW3 over Iran. His re-election is a big step for peace in that respect and I hope for more world progress if free energy emerges.
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
I don't think it is a big deal. It just means he is not insane. 2012/11/7 Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com ** I've never liked Obama but I did have to give him credit for telling the Israeli government No to starting WW3 over Iran. His re-election is a big step for peace in that respect and I hope for more world progress if free energy emerges. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
At least he can't blame anyone else this time for the mess he is
inheriting...
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I don't think it is a big deal. It just means he is not insane.
2012/11/7 Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'chrisz...@wetmtv.com');
**
I've never liked Obama but I did have to give him credit for telling the
Israeli government No to starting WW3 over Iran. His re-election is a big
step for peace in that respect and I hope for more world progress if free
energy emerges.
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'danieldi...@gmail.com');
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
Obama won. I was afraid of the more extreme elements of the republican party. I don't want a theocracy. On that basis, I voted for Obama. I am afraid of the extreme democrats also. They want to take us towards socialism.That was my choice more theocracy or more socialism. I could not go with creationism and the text book rewrites that go with the extreme elements Republican platform. I stand by science. I hope new cold fusion technology keeps our country from failing. If that is case, like in the book Lights in a Tunnel, we will need more socialism. We also need to get people back to work. What about foreign wars, we must fight theocracy in other lands? What if our military is too weak? I hope that nation does not go broke. I hope Obama knows what to do, I don't. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
As far as I know, real socialists that I know, despise any association with the democratic party since it's the only difference from the republican is a slight matter of discourse. Both of them are just facades of the same bourgeoisie. But I think this conclusion is not just restricted to radicals, heh. 2012/11/7 fznidar...@aol.com I am afraid of the extreme democrats also. They want to take us towards socialism. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Mitt and What To Do
I hope Obama knows what to do, I don't. Release a Presidential Pardon for anyone who exposes free energy or alien technology. If you're a skeptic, you have nothing to fear. None of that exists, right? Make peace with Iran and tell the Israelis they have 30 days to do a two state solution or face becoming South Africa, one man , one vote. Enough already. Announce Full Disclosure and END revealed religions thereby. Buddhists win by default. An improvement
Re: [Vo]:Mitt and What To Do
Condemn the Saudi dictatorship is equally important too! But I guess there are too many lobbies for that to be feasible. 2012/11/7 Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com ** I hope Obama knows what to do, I don't. Release a Presidential Pardon for anyone who exposes free energy or alien technology. If you're a skeptic, you have nothing to fear. None of that exists, right? Make peace with Iran and tell the Israelis they have 30 days to do a two state solution or face becoming South Africa, one man , one vote. Enough already. Announce Full Disclosure and END revealed religions thereby. Buddhists win by default. An improvement -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
Point well made ChemE. This election reminded me of the Indiana Jones movie where we chose unwisely. -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 7, 2012 10:02 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc. At least he can't blame anyone else this time for the mess he is inheriting... On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: I don't think it is a big deal. It just means he is not insane. 2012/11/7 Zell, Chris chrisz...@wetmtv.com I've never liked Obama but I did have to give him credit for telling the Israeli government No to starting WW3 over Iran. His re-election is a big step for peace in that respect and I hope for more world progress if free energy emerges. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
Frank, I share a lot of your concerns. I considered what I would do if I had to fill a job running a failing company. Had Obama and Romney been the two main applicants there would be little doubt as to which would get the job. One has a super track record, seems to be a great humanitarian, and obviously intelligent. The other is intelligent, but has failed in his only real job and blames others for his failures. A good leader demonstrates positive progress in his tasks and accepts responsibility for his difficulties. I pray that this wonderful country thrives during the next 4 years, but would not be surprised to see things get worse than they are currently due to lack of honest leadership. This will constitute my last political statement as I consider politics to be out of bounds. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 7, 2012 10:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc. Obama won. I was afraid of the more extreme elements of the republican party. I don't want a theocracy. On that basis, I voted for Obama. I am afraid of the extreme democrats also. They want to take us towards socialism.That was my choice more theocracy or more socialism. I could not go with creationism and the text book rewrites that go with the extreme elements Republican platform. I stand by science. I hope new cold fusion technology keeps our country from failing. If that is case, like in the book Lights in a Tunnel, we will need more socialism. We also need to get people back to work. What about foreign wars, we must fight theocracy in other lands? What if our military is too weak? I hope that nation does not go broke. I hope Obama knows what to do, I don't. Frank Znidarsic
[Vo]:Transitional technology that obsoletes itself
The other day I wrote: There are no permanent solutions in technology. Every invention carries in it the seeds of obsolescence. If it works at all, it must eventually become obsolete, because it works only because it fits in with the other machines, processes, standards, customs and so on prevalent at this moment in history. Thinking more about this . . . What do model T Fords, dotmatrix and Daisy wheel printers have in common? They were transitional technology. The model T had a very high suspension and narrow high wheels. This was ideal for dirt roads and poorly paved roads circa 1920. However the car proved so successful and sold in so many millions that owners pressured local governments to pave the roads and improve the road system with stop signs, traffic lights and so on. The improved roads made the Model T obsolete. In other words, the very success of this technology over 10 or 20 years made the product itself obsolete and paved the way for better automobiles. (Paved the way in both the literal and figurative sense.) In the 1980s, when personal computers became popular, we used dotmatrix and Daisy wheel printers. Neither was satisfactory. It was clear that something better was needed, but those were the best options available at the time. Personal computers succeeded in part because they allowed people to print documents, replacing typewriters and word processors. Cheap, reliable dotmatrix printers sped up the transition from typewriters and minicomputers to personal computers. This created a market for a better printer. Hewlett-Packard and others developed the LaserJet and later inkjet printers that soon replaced dotmatrix printers. The dotmatrix printer itself contributed to market trends and new technology that made dotmatrix printers obsolete. Bicycles played a similar role in the development of automobiles. In my book, I quoted Hiram Maxim describing a classic example of this: It has been the habit to give the gasoline engine all the credit for bringing in the automobile — in my opinion this is the wrong explanation. We have had the steam engine for over a century. We could have built steam vehicles in 1880, or indeed in 1870. But we did not. We waited until 1895. The reason why we did not build road vehicles before this, in my opinion, was because the bicycle had not yet come in numbers and had not directed men’s minds to the possibilities of long distance travel over the ordinary highway. We thought the railroad was good enough. The bicycle created a new demand which went beyond the ability of the railroad to supply. Then it came about that the bicycle could not satisfy the demand it had created. A mechanically propelled vehicle was wanted instead of a foot propelled one, and we know now that the automobile was the answer. Many people have discussed the need for a self-sustaining commercial cold fusion reactor. People feel that a reactor that plugs into the electric mains is somehow cheating, or unfair, or not cricket. They have urged Rossi and Defkalion to develop a fully autonomous self-sustaining reactor. People want this for two reasons: first, to prove beyond any doubt that the reaction is real. Second, because it seems strange to use electricity to power something that will eventually make mains electricity obsolete. The latter is misguided, in my opinion. It is a good idea to use an obsolescent technology to jumpstart a new replacement for that same technology. Why not? It will take decades to make this transition. By the time mains electricity actually disappears, the first generation cold fusion reactors will be in museums, like the TRS-80 and Apple personal computers on display in the Smithsonian. During a transitional period in technology we often use a combination of old and new in ways that decades later seem incongruous. Look at photographs of early automobiles, computers and other technology and you see a strange mixture of the future and the past. In photos from around 1910 you see military airplanes designed to be folded up and transported by horse-drawn wagons. In the 1970s people used minicomputers to generate large books full of greenbar paper, with things like open orders sorted in different ways, by customer or order date. You would print a new book every month, with a supplement every week, and leave it hanging in the corner of the office. People who wanted to look up information would go to the book and page through it. This seems like an odd way to do things but computer video monitors were still expensive and the screens were small, so this was cheaper. It was fast enough and much more convenient than using a paper file cabinet. In the late 1950s, IBM and American Airlines developed the SABRE online airline reservation system based on the SAGE intercontinental ballistic defense computer. It is not well known, but for five or 10 years before that they spent a terrific amount of money developing a hybrid electromechanical reservation system halfway
Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?
Interviews with Hameroff: http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-thirteen-august/what-is-consciousness-hameroff/ http://www.skeptiko.com/stuart-hameroff-on-quantum-consciousness-and-singularity/ Excerpt from the first: *Schlitz:* That brings up the criticism that the brain can’t be a quantum processor because it’s too wet or too warm or whatever the criticism happens to be. What I’m hearing you say is that, in your view, the brain can be a signaling processor for a kind of quantum field. How does that happen then? How do you bring microtubules into this idea of the brain as a quantum processor? *Hameroff: *First of all, what you said is exactly right. Most people do criticize the view that Roger Penrose and I came out with in 1995—that quantum computing and these microtubules inside brain neurons connect us to the fundamental level of the universe. They say, “Everybody know*s* that the brain is too warm, wet, and noisy to be a quantum computer.” They say this because of the problem technologists, engineers, and physicists face when trying to build quantum computers in a laboratory that will utilize these delicate quantum states. I should say a little bit about what that means: quantum superposition, where something can be in two states or places at the same time. When they try to do this with ions, individual atoms, or small particles, they run into the problem that any thermal vibration, any heat, will disrupt and destroy the quantum superposition and cause decoherence. And so to build a quantum computer in the laboratory and avoid the heat and the vibrations caused by the heat, they build them at absolute zero temperature. But biology has had billions of years to evolve mechanisms to avoid decoherence, and, more importantly, it’s probable that biology has developed mechanisms to use the heat to drive coherence like a laser. A laser is a quantum device; it uses heat not to destroy quantum coherence but to pump it. And so we—and a lot of people—think that biology uses heat and ambient energy to *drive* quantum coherence, not destroy it. Recent evidence in the last five or six years has come down pretty strongly on our side. For example, it’s been discovered that photosynthesis—the operation in all plants that give rise to our food, to everything we eat—utilizes quantum coherence. The photons from the sun are collected in one part of the cell and conveyed to another part of the cell to be made into chemical energy. This conductance of energy from point A to point B utilizes quantum coherence in ambient temperatures. If this happens in something as fundamental as photosynthesis, then it’s likely to be found throughout biology. And more importantly to our case, a fellow in Japan named Anirban Bandyopadhyay—it’s a hard name to say, but I think he’ll be quite famous within a few years—recently found that when vibrated at the right frequency, microtubules become quantum devices. And when that work comes out—Bandyopadhyay is presently writing it— it’s going to blow this field wide open.
Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?
An interview with Hameroff: Recent evidence in the last five or six years has come down pretty strongly on our side. For example, it’s been discovered that photosynthesis—the operation in all plants that give rise to our food, to everything we eat—utilizes quantum coherence. . . . If this happens in something as fundamental as photosynthesis, then it’s likely to be found throughout biology. Whoa. Excellent point. I had not thought of that. Once a biological mechanism evolves it tends to spread far and wide, in surprising ways. I have been kind of dismissing this hypothesis because of too hot, too wet problem the author cites. - Jed
[Vo]:A new paper on anomalous room-temp neutron generation
Anomalous Neutron Burst Emissions in Deuterium-Loaded Metals: Nuclear Reaction at Normal Temperature ABSTRACT: Conventional nuclear fusion occurs in plasma at temperatures greater than 107°C or when energy higher than 10 keV is applied. We report a new result of anomalous neutron emission, also called cascade neutron burst emission, from deuterium-loaded titanium and uranium deuteride samples at room temperature. The number of neutrons in the large bursts is measured as up to 2800 in less than a 64-#956;s interval. We suggest that the anomalous cascade neutron bursts are correlated with deuterium-loaded metals and probably the result of nuclear reactions occurring in the samples. http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/29/11/112501 Full pdf version is available with free registration. -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:The Quantum Soul?
Regarding the state of our souls: All I noze is that somehow we find ourselves living... and then we die. While transitioning between these two quantum states of existence I finally began to realize the fact that the universe, to me, is one big gigantic question mark, one that I will never be able to solve. Strangely, when I began to accept the horrible predicament I found myself in I began to feel less anxious. Who sez god doesn't have wicked sense of humor. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A new paper on anomalous room-temp neutron generation
Wow. Another neutron paper. They are popping up everywhere. Lou: If you have a copy of this, please tell me the author's e-mail. I will contact them and ask for permission to upload a copy. I am asking you only because I am too lazy to register and download a copy! So many websites, so little time . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A new paper on anomalous room-temp neutron generation
At 10:19 AM 11/7/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Anomalous Neutron Burst Emissions in Deuterium-Loaded Metals: Nuclear Reaction at Normal Temperature Conventional nuclear fusion occurs in plasma at temperatures greater than 107°C or when energy higher than 10 keV is applied. That's 10^7°C
Re: [Vo]:OT: Congradulations
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Well, Jed, you predicted final count would be 303. U wuz right. Plus I said 2% of the popular vote, which was right on the nose. Obama will probably take FL so I was too conservative. But FL is amazingly close. You might as well say both sides won it. I can't really take credit. I was just picking the pollsters I trust most, and Nate Silver, who sure knows a lot about statistics and s/n ratios. Gallup veered far from the other pollsters, but in the end fell almost back into line. It was almost right. You have to hand it to those people. As I suspected, their definition of likely voter (LV) was a little too conservative. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx Their LV is off by -3%; their registered voter number is off by +1%. The LV polling ended on Nov. 4. The gap was closing. If they had continued to Nov. 6 the gap might have been within 1% instead of 3%. I think their main mistake was to underestimate the youth vote and the Hispanic vote. It is uncanny how good modern polling has become. It is scary. The truth is, there were practically no surprises in this election for people who understand polling, statistics, margin of error, sample size and other issues. You should try to understand these issues. They are important in cold fusion and other experimental science. Rasmussen is controversial. I don't think they are so bad. Their number are reliable if you add +3% to the Democratic side. In other words, they have a fixed bias. This means they have good methodology for collecting data, with a proper random set of respondents, a good set of questions, and a large enough sample. But they introduce a bias in post-interview processing. This seems clear to me when I read the the actual questions they asked during the telephone interviews, and the processing methodology they describe in their literature. The questions they asked during telephone interviews and procedures seem well-designed. Every poster has to have some degree of postprocessing or the answers will be meaningless. For one thing, you have to adjust your responses to fit the population. For example, if you poll people at random and reach only ~5% Hispanics, you have to weigh their responses to represent ~10% of the likely voter (LV) population. Overly conservative posters put them at 8% instead of 10%, because they assumed Hispanic turnover would be lower than it was. This was a judgement call. This -- plus random variation -- is why there are differences between poll estimates. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A new paper on anomalous room-temp neutron generation
Yes - cut and paste some times screws up exponents. BTW, another interesting paper at that sight is: Zero point energy and zero point oscillations: how they are detected experimentally [[ Contents 1. Introduction 796 2. Development of the zero-point energy concept 797 3. Isotope effect in electronic±vibrational spectra of molecules 798 4. Diffraction of X-rays and neutrons from crystals 799 5. Manifestation of zero point oscillations in the Moessbauer effect probability 802 6. Observation of quantum effects in macroscopic oscillators 802 7. Optical cooling of nanomechanical oscillators 804 8. Conclusion 806 Abstract. The zero point energy of a system in a potential well is reviewed as a concept, with some history of the development behind it, and a discussion is given of how it can be detected experimentally from the electronic-vibrational spectrum of molecules with different isotopes (isotope effect). Also dis- cussed is how the zero point oscillations of crystal lattice atoms show up in the diffraction of X-rays and neutrons from crystals and in the temperature dependence of the Mossbauer effect probability. Other topics include measuring zero point oscilla- tions of water molecules in a nanotube to determine the form of the potential energy of the system; the role of zero point oscilla- tions in the dynamics of electrons in semiconductors, and ex- periments on the optical cooling and quantum behavior of mechanical oscillators.]] http://iopscience.iop.org/1063-7869/55/8/A04 Full pdf article is available with free registration. -- Lou Pagnucco At 10:19 AM 11/7/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Anomalous Neutron Burst Emissions in Deuterium-Loaded Metals: Nuclear Reaction at Normal Temperature Conventional nuclear fusion occurs in plasma at temperatures greater than 107°C or when energy higher than 10 keV is applied. That's 10^7°C
Re: [Vo]:OT: Congradulations
Jed was reading crop circles...
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'svj.orionwo...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Well, Jed, you predicted final count would be 303.
U wuz right.
Plus I said 2% of the popular vote, which was right on the nose.
Obama will probably take FL so I was too conservative. But FL is amazingly
close. You might as well say both sides won it.
I can't really take credit. I was just picking the pollsters I trust most,
and Nate Silver, who sure knows a lot about statistics and s/n ratios.
Gallup veered far from the other pollsters, but in the end fell almost
back into line. It was almost right. You have to hand it to those
people. As I suspected, their definition of likely voter (LV) was a
little too conservative. See:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Their LV is off by -3%; their registered voter number is off by +1%. The
LV polling ended on Nov. 4. The gap was closing. If they had continued to
Nov. 6 the gap might have been within 1% instead of 3%.
I think their main mistake was to underestimate the youth vote and
the Hispanic vote.
It is uncanny how good modern polling has become. It is scary. The truth
is, there were practically no surprises in this election for people who
understand polling, statistics, margin of error, sample size and other
issues.
You should try to understand these issues. They are important in cold
fusion and other experimental science.
Rasmussen is controversial. I don't think they are so bad. Their number
are reliable if you add +3% to the Democratic side. In other words, they
have a fixed bias. This means they have good methodology for collecting
data, with a proper random set of respondents, a good set of questions, and
a large enough sample. But they introduce a bias in post-interview
processing. This seems clear to me when I read the the actual questions
they asked during the telephone interviews, and the processing methodology
they describe in their literature. The questions they asked during
telephone interviews and procedures seem well-designed.
Every poster has to have some degree of postprocessing or the answers will
be meaningless. For one thing, you have to adjust your responses to fit the
population. For example, if you poll people at random and reach only ~5%
Hispanics, you have to weigh their responses to represent ~10% of the
likely voter (LV) population. Overly conservative posters put them at 8%
instead of 10%, because they assumed Hispanic turnover would be lower than
it was. This was a judgement call. This -- plus random variation -- is why
there are differences between poll estimates.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Congradulations
Here is a discussion of a poll aggregation methodology which worked extraordinarily well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jackman/modelbased-poll-averaging_b_1883525.html You can't just add up poll numbers and take the average. You have to take into account sample sizes, the date of the poll, whether it was a single day or a rolling average, and a bias or house effect for a given pollster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Congradulations
As I expect I have made clear, I am fascinated by public opinion polls. Even though this is off-topic, here is another interesting historical note about the subject. My late mother was something of an expert in polls. She was director of public opinion research at the US Census Bureau. Everyone familiar with polling history knows that the 1948 presidential election was miscalled by every pollster. People often point to this even today when they wish to discredit or downplay the significance of modern polling. They say, you never know who's going to win because look at 1948 and the famous newspaper photo of Truman holding a newspaper saying 'Dewey defeats Truman.' My mother was beginning her postwar professional career in 1948, after World War II work with the Army and others. See Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, Autumn, 1969: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2747532?uid=3739896uid=2129uid=2uid=70uid=4uid=3739256sid=21101260869333 Anyway, regarding 1948 she said: Believe me, nothing like that will ever happen again. The pollsters learned their lesson. In business we would say that was a wake-up call. It was like Ford's mismarketing of the Edsel. It became the foundation of modern poll taking. So don't imagine that pollsters are guessing or that they might be wrong by 5% or 10%. People are unpredictable individually, and their individual fate is unknowable. But, taken *en mass* you can make reliable predictions about people. With polls and actuarial tables we can characterize groups of people. That is why life insurance companies make a profit. You may find that depressing but it is a fact. Comparing modern methods to the techniques used in 1948 comparing an estimate made with a slide rule versus a supercomputer. That is literally true. People used slide rules back then. My mother liked them and used them to the end of her life. She said they were good for your mind because you had to remember where the decimal point is. That kept you on your toes. Plus, the fact that they worked was a good reminder that numbers are seldom significant beyond two or three digits anyway so why worry about precision? Accuracy matters. Precision, not so much. If you don't know the difference please don't write science papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Vote for Mitt Romney , Etc.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:45 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I am afraid of the extreme democrats also. They want to take us towards socialism. I think that this is untrue. Most of the leading Democratic thinkers, such as Joseph Stiglitz, wants more Keynesian economy and Keynesian economic policy is mostly polar opposite to that of Socialism, i.e. planned economy. I would guess that the US economic policy from 1980's onwards has mostly increased the influence of Goldman Sachs and other big players over the people and economy. Therefore it is quite justified to say there has been a shift towards privately controlled planned economy. E.g. oil price has fluctuated chaotically during the last decade, because it is not controlled by the law of supply and demand, but mostly speculative and algorithmic high frequency trading. This kind of HF-trading is destructive to the economy, because it does allow value extraction from the economy. And usually the more unbalance there is in the economy, the more there are opportunities for value extraction ― and the middle class is always the one who is paying the bill! However the idea of Keynesian economy is to increase relative purchasing power of the people. This way there is created more demand to the economy that will guide economy towards more productivity, more jobs and higher wages. If common people has more wealth than he needs for basic needs, there will be immense potential e.g. for crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is more effective in weeding out the most successful start-up companies. Traditional venture capitalistic approach is immensely inefficient and there are huge amounts of resources wasted for unfruitful start-up companies. There is far more wisdom in the crowd, especially in the era of social media, than what venture capitalists has to offer, therefore the mis-investment rate is inherently lower in crowdfunding than with venture capitalistic approach. This crowdfunding is just one example why it is good for the economy that most of the wealth is in hands of the Keynesian middle class rather than in the hands of Goldman Sachs and mittromnies. As Mitt Romney created his wealth by extracting value from the middle class misery, and he sees nothing wrong in that, I would say that this is the most powerful and fact based argument to support Obama over Romney. ―Jouni
[Vo]:We should employ new methods of persuading the public
I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama campaign. New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, gather support and encourage people to vote. I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the people in the Obama campaign to assist us. I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political in many ways. We must deal with political realities. Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists who are pioneering new methods. These methods are first and foremost pragmatic. They have been refined with field tests and actual data from respondents. These researchers have discovered a number of facts and new techniques about persuasion and public opinion. Some of them overturn widely held conventional ideas. Here's an interesting example. In a campaign the goal should not be to persuade people in the middle so much as to: 1. Hold onto one's own set of supporters; 2. Persuading moderates on the other side. Suppose the range of opinions on a political issue can be quantified such that a range of responses are graded from 1 to 10. Extremists in support of your side are at 1 and 2; people at 5 have no strong opinion; and people at the opposite extreme are at 9 and 10. I mean that when you ask a question people fill out numbers, the way people grade movies at Netflix. Your campaign should strive to hold onto people from 1 to 4, and it should reach out to people at 6 and 7 rather than 5. They are more likely to come over to your side than the people at 5. To take concrete example, in the third debate we saw Romney espouse foreign-policy positions very similar to Obama's. I think it is likely he did this deliberately in response to this recent public opinion research. He was trying to win over moderate Democrats rather than middle-of-the-road people or extremists on either side. In other words, if we say the continuum runs from 1 for extreme Democrats to 10 for extreme Republicans, Romney was trying to appeal to people at 3 or 4, rather than 5. In previous campaigns the target would be people at 5 or 6. Romney was trying to win over moderately conservative Democrats who have stronger opinions than the undecided middle, or persuadable man in the street. It turns out that people who already have some opinion on the subject are more persuadable than people who have no opinion, even when the former have an opinion somewhat against the one you wish to sell them. Applying this example to cold fusion, I target the papers and presentations at LENR-CANR.org to persuade physicists and engineers who are moderately opposed to cold fusion, rather than physicists who have no opinion about cold fusion. I should target professionals and those who have some standing and knowledge of physics, rather than people who are in the middle of the road, and people who have no opinions and nothing invested in the question. This may seem counter-intuitive but it has been tested field tested with large groups of people and I think it is probably correct. I will go through my browser history and buy some books, and report more about this in the coming weeks. In the 1980s and 90s, political campaigns about many techniques from Madison Avenue and commercial public opinion research firms. Starting in 2000 for the Democrats in particular began developing their own social science theory and public opinion theories. As I said, Obama has hired some of the most ambitious hotshot talent in this field. The DNC invested millions of dollars in computer databases and analyses. Some of these are superior to the best commercial efforts, and starting this year Madison Avenue is beginning to reach out to the campaigns instead of the other way around. As noted here in previous discussions, some corporations such as Amazon.com and Target have superb data mining and marketing techniques. In some instances described by the New York Times and others, the Target supercomputers were able to identify women who are pregnant before the women themselves realized they were. This is creepy. I have mixed feelings about it. But it is a fact of the 21st century. We do not have the resources to take advantage of this sort of thing, but if
[Vo]:OT: Congratulations
Question:How do you spell congradulations, is it congratulation or congradulation?Answer:Congratulations -noun 2. congratulations, an _expression_ of joy in the success or good fortune of another. Jed RothwellWed, 07 Nov 2012 11:22:46 -0800 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:Well, Jed, you predicted final count would be 303. U wuz right.Plus I said 2% of the popular vote, which was right on the nose.Obama will probably take FL so I was too conservative. But FL is amazinglyclose. You might as well say both sides won it.I can't really take credit. I was just picking the pollsters I trust most,and Nate Silver, who sure knows a lot about statistics and s/n ratios.Gallup veered far from the other pollsters, but in the end fell almost backinto line. It was almost right. You have to hand it to those people. As Isuspected, their definition of "likely voter" (LV) was a little tooconservative. See:http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspxSNIP
Re: [Vo]:We should employ new methods of persuading the public
You know what would be really swell, Jed? If you went onto Reddit ( http://www.reddit.com/r/AMA (Reddit's AMA (=Ask Me Anything) -forum)) and identified yourself like this: I'm a Cold Fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions archivist, ask me anything or any permutation of. that should get interesting. On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama campaign. New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, gather support and encourage people to vote. I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the people in the Obama campaign to assist us. I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political in many ways. We must deal with political realities. Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists who are pioneering new methods. These methods are first and foremost pragmatic. They have been refined with field tests and actual data from respondents. These researchers have discovered a number of facts and new techniques about persuasion and public opinion. Some of them overturn widely held conventional ideas. Here's an interesting example. In a campaign the goal should not be to persuade people in the middle so much as to: 1. Hold onto one's own set of supporters; 2. Persuading moderates on the other side. Suppose the range of opinions on a political issue can be quantified such that a range of responses are graded from 1 to 10. Extremists in support of your side are at 1 and 2; people at 5 have no strong opinion; and people at the opposite extreme are at 9 and 10. I mean that when you ask a question people fill out numbers, the way people grade movies at Netflix. Your campaign should strive to hold onto people from 1 to 4, and it should reach out to people at 6 and 7 rather than 5. They are more likely to come over to your side than the people at 5. To take concrete example, in the third debate we saw Romney espouse foreign-policy positions very similar to Obama's. I think it is likely he did this deliberately in response to this recent public opinion research. He was trying to win over moderate Democrats rather than middle-of-the-road people or extremists on either side. In other words, if we say the continuum runs from 1 for extreme Democrats to 10 for extreme Republicans, Romney was trying to appeal to people at 3 or 4, rather than 5. In previous campaigns the target would be people at 5 or 6. Romney was trying to win over moderately conservative Democrats who have stronger opinions than the undecided middle, or persuadable man in the street. It turns out that people who already have some opinion on the subject are more persuadable than people who have no opinion, even when the former have an opinion somewhat against the one you wish to sell them. Applying this example to cold fusion, I target the papers and presentations at LENR-CANR.org to persuade physicists and engineers who are moderately opposed to cold fusion, rather than physicists who have no opinion about cold fusion. I should target professionals and those who have some standing and knowledge of physics, rather than people who are in the middle of the road, and people who have no opinions and nothing invested in the question. This may seem counter-intuitive but it has been tested field tested with large groups of people and I think it is probably correct. I will go through my browser history and buy some books, and report more about this in the coming weeks. In the 1980s and 90s, political campaigns about many techniques from Madison Avenue and commercial public opinion research firms. Starting in 2000 for the Democrats in particular began developing their own social science theory and public opinion theories. As I said, Obama has hired some of the most ambitious hotshot talent in this field. The DNC invested millions of dollars in computer databases and analyses. Some of these are superior to the best commercial efforts, and starting this year Madison Avenue is beginning to reach out to the campaigns instead of the other way around. As noted here in previous
[Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
Can be found in here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/sven-kullander-on-the-e-cat/ Jeff
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
All I can say is: heh 2012/11/7 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Can be found in here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/sven-kullander-on-the-e-cat/ Jeff -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Can be found in here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/sven-kullander-on-the-e-cat/ Jeff The USN is searching for new propulsion tech: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/Navy-Researchers-Look-to-Rotating-Detonation-Engines-to-Power-the-Future
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: All I can say is: heh More appropriate, Meh.
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
In side email, someone pointed out that NRL rumor is a year old. I misread the first part of the article and missed that. I wouldn't even have bothered forwarding the link. Jeff On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: All I can say is: heh More appropriate, Meh.
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: In side email, someone pointed out that NRL rumor is a year old. I misread the first part of the article and missed that. I wouldn't even have bothered forwarding the link. Before it was an unattributed rumor. The link provides an attribution and, yes, you did right to post it. Personally, knowing someone who retired from USN research, they leave no stone unturned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Maccabee While Bruce never claimed that the Navy supported his UFO research, neither did they condone it, so he told me when I asked.
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: While Bruce never claimed that the Navy supported his UFO research, neither did they condone it, so he told me when I asked. Dr. Maccabee's personal website: http://www.brumac.8k.com/
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
Though it would be curious if one arm of the Navy shuts down CF research and another buys an eCat (and 12 more?)
Re: [Vo]:A claim that NRL bought an E-Cat
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Though it would be curious if one arm of the Navy shuts down CF research and another buys an eCat (and 12 more?) The term is going black.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Congradulations
Note the work of Serge Galam that recently try to explain the tied election results http://www.citeulike.org/user/xsongx/article/2506399 the factr seems to be contrarians, people who in discussion about politic oppose the majority (whatever it is). It is the opposite of the classical followers, who in discussion rather follow the majority,and instead of tight results, lead to strong polarisation... Serge Galam propose physics-like models of opinion transition (similar to spin networks). His previews followers model make him think that if a campaign goes long, the result only depend on the respective stubborn population, of people that are unable to change opinion when facing opposite arguments. at the end of a long campaing, if one camp have more stubborn, it will will. contrarians on the opposite avoid the polarization... so contrarians and subborn determine the result, note that this kind of models are not new. I remember a similar model for racial ghetto emergence in cities.. 2012/11/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com As I expect I have made clear, I am fascinated by public opinion polls. Even though this is off-topic, here is another interesting historical note about the subject. My late mother was something of an expert in polls. She was director of public opinion research at the US Census Bureau. Everyone familiar with polling history knows that the 1948 presidential election was miscalled by every pollster. People often point to this even today when they wish to discredit or downplay the significance of modern polling. They say, you never know who's going to win because look at 1948 and the famous newspaper photo of Truman holding a newspaper saying 'Dewey defeats Truman.' My mother was beginning her postwar professional career in 1948, after World War II work with the Army and others. See Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, Autumn, 1969: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2747532?uid=3739896uid=2129uid=2uid=70uid=4uid=3739256sid=21101260869333 Anyway, regarding 1948 she said: Believe me, nothing like that will ever happen again. The pollsters learned their lesson. In business we would say that was a wake-up call. It was like Ford's mismarketing of the Edsel. It became the foundation of modern poll taking. So don't imagine that pollsters are guessing or that they might be wrong by 5% or 10%. People are unpredictable individually, and their individual fate is unknowable. But, taken *en mass* you can make reliable predictions about people. With polls and actuarial tables we can characterize groups of people. That is why life insurance companies make a profit. You may find that depressing but it is a fact. Comparing modern methods to the techniques used in 1948 comparing an estimate made with a slide rule versus a supercomputer. That is literally true. People used slide rules back then. My mother liked them and used them to the end of her life. She said they were good for your mind because you had to remember where the decimal point is. That kept you on your toes. Plus, the fact that they worked was a good reminder that numbers are seldom significant beyond two or three digits anyway so why worry about precision? Accuracy matters. Precision, not so much. If you don't know the difference please don't write science papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:We should employ new methods of persuading the public
A serial innovator I'm in contact with, and who is working to make LENR a vector of energetic transition, told me that there is no hope to convince people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client table, and that clearly work, even roughly. However as soon as we have a machine on the client table, and that the advantages for the client are clear, nothing can block people to use it... no lobbies, no regulation, no fear... especially todays, where it is clear that people think that the system cannot continue as-is. what make me afraid is that the replication of LENR (like by MFMP), won't have any impact People , even open mind, seems not to be able to accept LENR. It must make a car run or a plane fly, and even, people will suspect fraud. normal poeple behave between SDciAm (don't look at facts) or MY (argue on tiny points to reject the mass of proofs) 2012/11/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama campaign. New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, gather support and encourage people to vote. I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the people in the Obama campaign to assist us. I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political in many ways. We must deal with political realities. Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists who are pioneering new methods. These methods are first and foremost pragmatic. They have been refined with field tests and actual data from respondents. These researchers have discovered a number of facts and new techniques about persuasion and public opinion. Some of them overturn widely held conventional ideas. Here's an interesting example. In a campaign the goal should not be to persuade people in the middle so much as to: 1. Hold onto one's own set of supporters; 2. Persuading moderates on the other side. Suppose the range of opinions on a political issue can be quantified such that a range of responses are graded from 1 to 10. Extremists in support of your side are at 1 and 2; people at 5 have no strong opinion; and people at the opposite extreme are at 9 and 10. I mean that when you ask a question people fill out numbers, the way people grade movies at Netflix. Your campaign should strive to hold onto people from 1 to 4, and it should reach out to people at 6 and 7 rather than 5. They are more likely to come over to your side than the people at 5. To take concrete example, in the third debate we saw Romney espouse foreign-policy positions very similar to Obama's. I think it is likely he did this deliberately in response to this recent public opinion research. He was trying to win over moderate Democrats rather than middle-of-the-road people or extremists on either side. In other words, if we say the continuum runs from 1 for extreme Democrats to 10 for extreme Republicans, Romney was trying to appeal to people at 3 or 4, rather than 5. In previous campaigns the target would be people at 5 or 6. Romney was trying to win over moderately conservative Democrats who have stronger opinions than the undecided middle, or persuadable man in the street. It turns out that people who already have some opinion on the subject are more persuadable than people who have no opinion, even when the former have an opinion somewhat against the one you wish to sell them. Applying this example to cold fusion, I target the papers and presentations at LENR-CANR.org to persuade physicists and engineers who are moderately opposed to cold fusion, rather than physicists who have no opinion about cold fusion. I should target professionals and those who have some standing and knowledge of physics, rather than people who are in the middle of the road, and people who have no opinions and nothing invested in the question. This may seem counter-intuitive but it has been tested field tested with large groups of people and I think it is probably correct. I will go through my browser history and buy some books, and report more about this in the coming weeks. In the 1980s and 90s, political campaigns about many techniques from
