Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Here's an old discussion I had on an intrade board about the probability of Rossi being real http://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html Re: I miss Intradehttp://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html#p138 [image: Post] http://intrade.freeforums.org/post138.html#p138by *intrader http://intrade.freeforums.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=70* » Mon May 27, 2013 2:12 am Third time is the charm: P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) or P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(A|B) A = E-Cat Rossi is real B = Cold fusion (or something close to it) is discovered If E-Cat is real, it looks like cold fusion to me (or something close to it). P(B|A) = 0.5 I think we all can go with the prior probability that E-Cat Rossi was probably not real (history of fraud / was convicted / etc) P(A) = 0.01 Now, what is the probability that if cold fusion exists that it's going to be Rossi that makes a real e-cat? Interestingly, the more we disparage Rossi (relative to his colleagues) here, the more likely cold fusion exists. Unfortunately, I think only people like Rossi are actually looking at cold fusion. So if it does exists, I think it's reasonable to say it'll be Rossi or perhaps someone like Rossi that might discover it. So, P(A|B) = 0.05 (I think it's fair to say at least 20 other people are looking at it). However, if it looks like more people of Rossi's caliber or better are looking at Cold Fusion, then that bodes well for CF. So, go ahead and punch in your own number there. Counter intuitive, kinda, but that's bayes for you. So, P(B) = (0.5 * 0.01) / 0.05 = 25% cold fusion exists.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Cold Fusion exists for PdD. What is not proven is NiH fusion. 2014-05-18 3:46 GMT-03:00 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (kevmol...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rulehttps://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DqOCcFOWfRIDXns%252Fk0er%252FZjy7ZKsFOYoyirVmjCPiyY6u6lGGxMLRodfUAiXtsAKPvZkWU8F%252BzRA2VIIWjvIaux7PReKXMS%252BSz%252BmkCH6FexCH0EOvbVBsOkMb0OdRfrW23NYBqdo5NK4%253D%26key%3DKUyC%252FtlJtMKM9TZR2KeGHklch5tvOPJ3X8iVx5J6yQY%253Dtc_serial=17288660888tc_rand=1386676834utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001| More infohttp://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=17288660888tc_rand=1386676834utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 Here's an old discussion I had on an intrade board about the probability of Rossi being real http://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html Re: I miss Intradehttp://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html#p138 [image: Post] http://intrade.freeforums.org/post138.html#p138by *intrader http://intrade.freeforums.org/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofileu=70* » Mon May 27, 2013 2:12 am Third time is the charm: P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) or P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(A|B) A = E-Cat Rossi is real B = Cold fusion (or something close to it) is discovered If E-Cat is real, it looks like cold fusion to me (or something close to it). P(B|A) = 0.5 I think we all can go with the prior probability that E-Cat Rossi was probably not real (history of fraud / was convicted / etc) P(A) = 0.01 Now, what is the probability that if cold fusion exists that it's going to be Rossi that makes a real e-cat? Interestingly, the more we disparage Rossi (relative to his colleagues) here, the more likely cold fusion exists. Unfortunately, I think only people like Rossi are actually looking at cold fusion. So if it does exists, I think it's reasonable to say it'll be Rossi or perhaps someone like Rossi that might discover it. So, P(A|B) = 0.05 (I think it's fair to say at least 20 other people are looking at it). However, if it looks like more people of Rossi's caliber or better are looking at Cold Fusion, then that bodes well for CF. So, go ahead and punch in your own number there. Counter intuitive, kinda, but that's bayes for you. So, P(B) = (0.5 * 0.01) / 0.05 = 25% cold fusion exists. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I suppose that goes right to the heart of what Blaze means by Real. If PdD fusion were real in his mind, we would have PdD cold fusion reactors replacing coal plants by the dozen every month, people would be ordering a cup of Richard Garwin tea from Starbucks, and you could buy a LENR generator for $5000. On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Cold Fusion exists for PdD. What is not proven is NiH fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Really? In Italy, he was granted. Only there. An it is extremely unlikely that he will get anywhere . . . His ability to make the machine work is intellectual property whether he has a patent or not. It is a trade secret. Stealing a trade secret is unethical if not illegal. Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You would be crazy to sign a contract with someone who says that. Rossi may file for another patent, and he may get it. So he still has intellectual property in that sense as well. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
From: David Roberson I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from the nucleus. The energy of these rays is not the criteria. One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by the nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta. Dave, Bob In modern usage, and as taught at Universities today (so we should use this convention on vortex) the gamma ray is the highest energy photon and its point of origin is not usually considered relevant, only its frequency, or energy. I will go into greater detail below, since this terminology is a source of continuing confusion on the internet; plus there is one notable exception to the rule above. Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10^19 Hz and energies above 100 keV but the dividing line on the low-end is arbitrary - and 100 keV is considered the standard, below which we find x-rays, regardless of point of origin - but there is one exception. All radiation from radioactive decay is defined as gamma, no matter what the energy level. That is usually no problem since the lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay is often around 100 keV anyway, and only in a few situations is the energy of nuclear decay sometimes less than that - tritium decay and neutron decay. In short, the nucleus CANNOT normally emit wavelengths below gamma, due to its own small size, since it must act as an antenna in order to radiate (and its small circumference would determine that wavelength limit, if there was no QM). Nevertheless, it is fair to say that visible light or UV cannot be emitted by any nucleus. Another reason to end the association of gamma radiation with the nucleus is that most gamma radiation (cosmologically) originates outside of any nucleus; and on earth gamma radiation that is NOT associated with a nuclear origin can easily arise from electron-positron annihilation or other kinds of matter/antimatter interaction, pion decay, bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton scattering, and synchrotron radiation. Historically bremsstrahlung or braking radiation was reserved for x-rays, regardless of energy - since it is usually produced in inner electron orbitals - but in modern usage - if the radiation has energy larger than 100 keV it should be called gamma or gamma bremsstrahlung. BTW - If we wanted to help out another theory with a plausible scenario - i.e. to invent a kludge which would make the pre-radiation of adequate UV photons before the actual fusion event [DD-He] explanation work, especially in the context of antenna theory, this can be done. However, I doubt anyone will borrow this: This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the diproton species (2He) with neutrons only slightly bound to this core, and at a substantial distance away (in short as a halo). This species can be called the diproton with halo and could shed the full 24 MeV, which cannot be done via electrons. The 2He nucleus does have a short lifetime, which is possibly extended long enough by having a halo to do the following: the two neutrons become separated in a remote halo orbital, from whence the circumference is adequate for them to shed UV photons (possibly in the 100+eV range) which are easily thermalized. This species (which will be called the diproton with halo) could then be positioned to shed the full 24 MeV in as a few as 250,000 sequential photons, at the same time as the halo orbital is shrinking down. This would all transpire sub-nanosecond. In the end, the two halo neutrons spiral down to collapse into the 2He core, forming an alpha, but with almost no excess mass. The falsifiability is a matter of documenting the EUV emission. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
The more you say, the worse it gets. 2014-05-18 11:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Let us extend this line of logic a bit more. If a partner of one joint venture was engaged with another company while still in that partnership to produce a device that is similar in function to the product that was the commercialized object of the original partnership, is that side activity to replicate the function of that original product with cooperation of the other company an attempt to steal the intellectual property of the original partnership. Is the aggrieved partner of the original partnership justified in breaking the original partnership if they become aware of the outside activities of the other partner in violation of the original partnership? For a partner in a partnership, who is trying to duplicate the functionality of a product with another party the act of stealing intellectual property? IMHO, this is similar to unfaithfulness in a marriage. Is divorce based on unfaithfulness justified? On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Really? In Italy, he was granted. Only there. An it is extremely unlikely that he will get anywhere . . . His ability to make the machine work is intellectual property whether he has a patent or not. It is a trade secret. Stealing a trade secret is unethical if not illegal. Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You would be crazy to sign a contract with someone who says that. Rossi may file for another patent, and he may get it. So he still has intellectual property in that sense as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
The partnership between Rossi and DGT had be terminated when the alleged act occurred and is therefore not a violation of the partnership. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The more you say, the worse it gets. 2014-05-18 11:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
I allege the Gamberale was aiding another company to produce a LENR device while in a joint venture with DGT and that is way the Mose/DGT joint venture was dissolved. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let us extend this line of logic a bit more. If a partner of one joint venture was engaged with another company while still in that partnership to produce a device that is similar in function to the product that was the commercialized object of the original partnership, is that side activity to replicate the function of that original product with cooperation of the other company an attempt to steal the intellectual property of the original partnership. Is the aggrieved partner of the original partnership justified in breaking the original partnership if they become aware of the outside activities of the other partner in violation of the original partnership? For a partner in a partnership, who is trying to duplicate the functionality of a product with another party the act of stealing intellectual property? IMHO, this is similar to unfaithfulness in a marriage. Is divorce based on unfaithfulness justified? On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Really? In Italy, he was granted. Only there. An it is extremely unlikely that he will get anywhere . . . His ability to make the machine work is intellectual property whether he has a patent or not. It is a trade secret. Stealing a trade secret is unethical if not illegal. Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You would be crazy to sign a contract with someone who says that. Rossi may file for another patent, and he may get it. So he still has intellectual property in that sense as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Yes, I also allege that. I wanted to get in there subtly, but as my wife says, I am not subtle! 2014-05-18 12:14 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: I allege the Gamberale was aiding another company to produce a LENR device while in a joint venture with DGT and that is way the Mose/DGT joint venture was dissolved. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I allege the Gamberale was aiding another company to produce a LENR device while in a joint venture with DGT and that is way the Mose/DGT joint venture was dissolved. Okay. Do you have any evidence for that? Any corroboration? I assume that is a joke. It is not funny. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The more you say, the worse it gets. 2014-05-18 11:07 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You mean when I repeat what Xanthoulis himself said in press interviews, that makes my case worse? I do not think so. You are saying that we cannot believe what Xanthoulis says *about himself*. Why can we believe then? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
You are taking a very vicious interpretation from something inocous that he said. 2014-05-18 12:57 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: You mean when I repeat what Xanthoulis himself said in press interviews, that makes my case worse? I do not think so. You are saying that we cannot believe what Xanthoulis says *about himself*. Why can we believe then? - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
I wrote: It Defkalion did not prevent these tests, I think it is up to them to publish a statement explaining why the tests were not done until after ICCF18. Let them tell their version of the story. To be fair, I should point out that Xanthoulis indirectly addressed the gentlemen's agreement issue in the Lewan interview: *I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked* for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by Defkalion personel without discussions. Xanthoulis also said that he didn’t understand why Gamberale hadn’t asked these questions earlier during months of contacts and visits by Mose at Defkalion’s offices in Canada, and by Defkalion in Milan. Gamberale explained that he had tried to get the information he needed but that he was never allowed to make the measurements he asked for. Instead he described his role as one of an observer. *Finally Xanthoulis pointed out* that the flow calorimetry measurements (measurement of thermal energy output by heating flowing water) were not important . . . I do not find Xanthoulis' assertions credible -- First, mmany people told Xanthoulis, Hadjichristos and the others at Defkalion that a reality check measurement of the flow meter and temperatures is essential. I told them this dozens of times over the years, and I saw memos from others repeating what I said. We said 'it is good that you have sophisticated digital instruments, but you must also use a stopwatch and cylinder to confirm the digital instruments.' They agreed. Long before their agreement with DE they were told by many experts to do this. They did not do it. They could not have. If they had, they would have cancelled the ICCF18 demo. Second, it makes no sense to claim the flow calorimetry measurements were not important, and that you can depend on cell temperature alone. Without knowing the flow rate, you cannot reach any conclusion about what power the cell temperature indicates. The cell temperature will vary with the flow rate, just as the inlet and outlet water temperature varies. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You are taking a very vicious interpretation from something inocous that he said. No, his statement was quite clear. I discussed it with Rossi and with some of the potential customers Defkalion and DE were negotiating with. Rossi said he did not believe Defkalion had managed to steal his secrets. The potential customers were flabbergasted, and they cut off negotiations immediately. They said it would be like buying stolen goods. They assumed the statement was true, since it came directly from the president of the company. That is the most reliable source imaginable! They assumed that Defkalion would be tied up in civil suits forever, if not criminal suits. (I do not know about Europe, but in the U.S., stealing trade secrets is sometimes criminal, but in other cases it is only a civil matter. That depends on how you steal them. If an employee learns the secrets in the course of his work, and then walks out the door to a rival company, he may be sued in civil court, but that is not criminal.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
You said once he was not technologically savvy and now you trust him. Of course, that might refer to people who gave him an information, but that just changed the subject of the sentence, not the issue you raised. And I keep wondering what these memos you are referring to. If that's from NASA, I'd be suspicious since they give credit to a theory that doesn't even make sense theoretically. Unless, they are naive too! Which I wouldn't believe. So, what if DE is just trying to steal from Defkalion and send it to NASA/WL! Look, http://news.newenergytimes.net/, Krivit did not even bother to report anything on DE/DGT! Maybe it would be inconvenient in this case? See, how easy can I make a theory? 2014-05-18 13:09 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: measurements (measurement of thermal energy output by heating flowing water) were not important . . . -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You would be crazy to sign a contract with someone who says that. He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT stole it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You said once he was not technologically savvy and now you trust him. I do not trust him. I am saying that if he was telling the truth that they stole the trade secrets, he is unethical. If he was lying and they did not steal any secrets, he is crazy. By saying that, he frightened away customers and threw away millions of dollars of potential sales. He is not technologically savvy because he said that the cell temperature can be used to measure heat even when the flow rate is not known. That is incorrect. And I keep wondering what these memos you are referring to. I just told you: memos from me to Defkalion, and from other people to Defkalion. If that's from NASA, I'd be suspicious since they give credit to a theory that doesn't even make sense theoretically. The memos had nothing to do with theory. They said only that manual tests of the flow and temperature were essential to confirm the claim. See, how easy can I make a theory? Your theory is not based on any evidence. My claims are based on memos that I and others sent to Defkalion, and statements published by Xanthoulis in the mass media. So, your theory is hot air without a shred of supporting evidence, and what I am telling you are irrefutable facts. There is a big difference. I am not going to respond to your nonsense again. You are free to have the last word. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
2014-05-18 14:08 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: He is not technologically savvy because he said that the cell temperature can be used to measure heat even when the flow rate is not known. That is incorrect. Oh, but Rossi did that too with the hot cat too! The memos had nothing to do with theory. They said only that manual tests of the flow and temperature were essential to confirm the claim. Oh, so these are not informative demos, but nagging demos! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT stole it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge. That is theft of trade secrets. Some of the people negotiating with him were appalled, as was I. Maybe you do not think this is theft, and maybe Xanthoulis does not think it is, but by the standards of U.S. business ethics, it is theft and will surely mean Defkalion is not free to sell the product and they will be tied up in civil suits for years if they try to sell it. I am pretty sure there will be no civil suit for trade secret theft, because as far as I know they do not have a working product. Maybe they tried to steal the secret, but they failed. The people at Defkalion Europe (DE) declared themselves out of business as soon they discovered the claims were false and the machine does not produce excess heat. I and others have praised them for doing this. In point of fact, they had to do that. Any other course of action would be criminal fraud. Once you know your product does not work, you have stop selling it. They deserve praise for doing this quickly and decisively, and for warning their customers. They deserve praise for telling Defkalion, and for publishing the report. Defkalion has known their claims are wrong at least since the day after ICCF18, and probably much longer. Yet they are still in business, and they still claim it works. If it was was not fraud up until ICCF18, it surely is now. (It might have been an idiotic mistake up until ICCF18, but I think that is very unlikely, given all the times I and others warned them to do reality check tests.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: He is not technologically savvy because he said that the cell temperature can be used to measure heat even when the flow rate is not known. That is incorrect. Oh, but Rossi did that too with the hot cat too! As far as I know, Rossi has not used flow calorimetry with the hot cat. There is no flow of cooling water moving through it. Therefore the cell temperature can be used as is, either with reference to a calibration or the Stefan-Boltzmann law (or both). You can use the cell temperature to determine heat output when you use flow calorimetry. You can use it in addition to the inlet and outlet cooling water temperatures. However, the cell temperature varies with the flow rate, so if the flow meter malfunctions and you do not realize that the flow rate has changed, you will get the wrong answer for both methods. Both the cell temperature and the cooling water inlet and outlet temperatures will give the wrong answer. The answers are likely to diverge, which warns you that something is wrong. This happened to me in studies with Mallove and others. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
See, temperature can be used to measure energy. You agree with Xanthoulis. You just had to calm down a little bit :) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
BTW, it was not a big deal that Defkalion did mass spectrometry. Remember: Rossi showed one to Krivit: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3726appendixd4.shtml And as I said, it's easy to copy Rossi, and mass spectrometry do not help much with that. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
I should not respond but . . . Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: See, temperature can be used to measure energy. You agree with Xanthoulis. Do you speak language? Do you have the slightest idea what you are babbling about? Have you ever looked at a flow calorimeter, or the data from one? Maybe you are joking, but if you seriously think that the cooling water flow rate does not affect the cell wall temperature -- which is what Xanthoulis said -- then you understand NOTHING ABOUT CALORIMETRY. Nothing! You don't even know the difference between flow calorimetry and what Levi et al. did during the ELFORSK tests. I suggest you stop writing fact-free blather about a subject you know nothing about. Or if you do know about it, stop writing statements you know to be nonsense. You are of line flooding this forum with nonsense. This is a science forum, not a new-age happy place where anything goes and we are free to ignore facts and physics. - Jed
[Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
A newly-found paper, coincidence, metaphor and side notes are converging into a new diproton plus halo explanation for deuterium-to-helium slow fusion sans gamma. My apology to Ed Storms if this reflects his own viewpoint, but in fact it came up as an alternative way to arrive at a defensible end-result without the intractable problems of borrowing from either Randell Mills or Peter Hagelstein. It builds on the insight of Bob, Dave and Robin that exclusivity to one channel can be ingrained if the QM reaction can happen only in a reversed mode where energy release precedes actual fusion as an operative condition, instead of the other way around- but not in the Mills way using electron orbitals. In fact, a diproton plus halo method can be described as uniquely positioned between those two main theories IF we can set the stage properly for a neutron halo configuration. Neutron stars are known to be copious emitters of EUV - the source of which was assumed to be gravitational. There is more to that story, if and when electrogravity replaces gravity alone, which happens at the Fermi level. The neutrons in neutron stars are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion principle, and the mass spacing in young neutron stars is consistent with halo nuclei as seen on earth. That may be more metaphor than coincidence. However, another piece of the puzzle is that helium on earth is known to have isotopes with a halo nucleus of the correct size for the EUV hypothesis which has been offered. See: Charge radii and neutron correlations in helium halo nuclei Papadimitriou, et al. 2011 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0223 This neutron star situation could be envisioned as not unlike the LENR scenario where two deuterons cannot fuse on initial approach as the threshold for fusion is not met. Instead, the two protons could form into a transient Cooper pair (or a diproton) such that the neutrons remain nearby in what becomes a collapsing halo orbital around this diproton, all the while radiating EUV until such time (sub nanosecond) as ~24 MeV has been shed as EUV photons or increasing energy in a vortex collapse. This is the cold fusion version of a neutron star phenomenon, which has at least a real metaphor in the star being an intrinsic emitter of EUV on gravitational collapse, which should happen nearly identically as electrogravitational collapse. This involves ToE unification, which we will save for another time. Then we have the Pairing anti-halo effect of the cited paper above (last paragraph of page 4). There is the possibility that this kind of fusion will involve 3 deuterons, instead of two but that is a future refinement which might help explain Mizuno's recent results. The rest of the hypothesis was tossed around earlier today - on a lark. On further consideration, a transient halo may be closer to accurate then first imagined, especially if future testing of deuterium LENR uncovers the predicted intense EUV radiation. The photon quanta are predictable from halo collapse, possibly using a cosmology tool. On earth this spectrum of radiation is universally absorbed, and difficult to document inside a reactor - Mills has done so in the context of his own theory, using a pinhole UV detector. Despite that success, his theory does not involve fusion nor emission due to electrogravity. All of the pieces need to be brought together. Note: this hypothesis is NOT Millsean, despite the UV similarity ... and in fact is completely contrary to the CQM theory. Mills thinks that the EUV which he documents comes from electron orbital redundancy, with no fusion. Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton core. If we want to help out another theory with a plausible scenario - i.e. to invent a kludge which would make the pre-radiation of adequate UV photons before the actual fusion event [DD-He] explanation work, especially in the context of antenna theory, this can be done. However, I doubt anyone will borrow this: This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the diproton species (2He) with neutrons only slightly bound to this core, and at a substantial distance away (in short as a halo). This species can be called the diproton with halo and could shed the full 24 MeV, which cannot be done via electrons. The 2He nucleus does have a short lifetime, which is possibly extended long enough by having a halo to do the following: the two neutrons become separated in a remote halo orbital, from whence the circumference is adequate for them to shed UV photons (possibly in the 100+eV range) which are easily thermalized. This species (which will be called the diproton with halo) could then be
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
I meant to write: you are out of line flooding this forum with nonsense. I mean that. This is not the place for empty rhetoric, or tit-for-tat zero-sum argumentation. If you do not understand why the flow rate affects the cell wall temperature, please try to learn. Do not reflexively deny that fact, or pretend it is some sort of joke. The statements made by Xanthoulis to Lewan are either grossly ignorant, or they are a deliberate effort to deceive ignorant members of the public. Here in this forum one of our jobs is to separate out ignorance from valid technical claims. Xanthoulis's statements are important. (Okay, it is a self-appointed job but . . .) Xanthoulis' statements are central to the biggest scandal in the history of cold fusion. They should be carefully analyzed. People here should not flippantly dismiss me when I point out why Xanthoulis is wrong. If you cannot contribute to a serious discussion, please shut up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
He said measuring the temperature of the cell. He doesn't say on what conditions. You assume with flow. I am serious. I am not cursing you, I am not telling you a liar, ad mouthing you, I am seeing problems with your assumptions and how you build the arguments from there, speaking about them. 2014-05-18 15:35 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Maybe you are joking, but if you seriously think that the cooling water flow rate does not affect the cell wall temperature -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
Yes, this is aprox. the idea I developed with Akito. The fusing atoms are like mini neutron stars. 2014-05-18 15:36 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: This explanation would be that D+D occasionally forms incompletely, not as 4He but instead as a two proton core - the diproton species (2He) with neutrons only slightly bound to this core, and at a substantial distance away (in short as a halo). This species can be called the diproton with halo and could shed the full 24 MeV, which cannot be done via electrons. The 2He nucleus does have a short lifetime, which is possibly extended long enough by having a halo to do the following: the two neutrons become separated in a remote halo orbital, from whence the circumference is adequate for them to shed UV photons (possibly in the 100+eV range) which are easily thermalized. This species (which will be called the diproton with halo) could then be positioned to shed the full 24 MeV in as a few as 250,000 sequential photons, at the same time as the halo orbital is shrinking down. This would all transpire sub-nanosecond. In the end, the two halo neutrons spiral down to collapse into the 2He core, forming an alpha, but with almost no excess mass. The falsifiability is a matter of documenting the EUV emission. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton core. Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation? Eric
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
I don't know what Jones will answer, but the equations for gravity near a neutron star are similar, as a 1st aprox., to Maxwell equations. 2014-05-18 16:01 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com: On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton core. Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation? Eric -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
My statement is an allegation in the same way that all your assertions are based on your allegations. I will attempt to substantiate this allegation to arrive at a more perfect truth. The level of infidelity in a partnership my be relatively slight and need not be as rigorous as the types of allegations that you are making so if all thing are equal, I will have an easier time making my case than you will have because the level of your allegations are high indeed and in point of fact approach the ridiculous. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I allege the Gamberale was aiding another company to produce a LENR device while in a joint venture with DGT and that is way the Mose/DGT joint venture was dissolved. Okay. Do you have any evidence for that? Any corroboration? I assume that is a joke. It is not funny. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
I have said many times that I know Rossi's trade secrets as a result of the unguarded things that Rossi says publicly. At the next level, I am not privy to the vast amount of information the Jed gets from private sources that he uses to support his statements, allegations and system ideas.. When a person is NOT in a joint venture anymore, he can ethically take advantage of any security lapse that allows legally obtained information flow from an erstwhile confidential source when proper security procedures are not in place to a sufficient level. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Xanthoulis was bragging in the press that he steals trade secrets from his business partners. You would be crazy to sign a contract with someone who says that. He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT stole it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge Agreements made in a joint venture are null and void after the partnership is terminated by the principle party(Rossi) on any information producing activity that occurs after the partnership is terminated. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: He claimed that DGT learned Rossi's trade secret. He did not say DGT stole it. He stated this publicly because he wanted to persuade people that DGT could build a working reactor without Rossi's help. He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge. That is theft of trade secrets. Some of the people negotiating with him were appalled, as was I. Maybe you do not think this is theft, and maybe Xanthoulis does not think it is, but by the standards of U.S. business ethics, it is theft and will surely mean Defkalion is not free to sell the product and they will be tied up in civil suits for years if they try to sell it. I am pretty sure there will be no civil suit for trade secret theft, because as far as I know they do not have a working product. Maybe they tried to steal the secret, but they failed. The people at Defkalion Europe (DE) declared themselves out of business as soon they discovered the claims were false and the machine does not produce excess heat. I and others have praised them for doing this. In point of fact, they had to do that. Any other course of action would be criminal fraud. Once you know your product does not work, you have stop selling it. They deserve praise for doing this quickly and decisively, and for warning their customers. They deserve praise for telling Defkalion, and for publishing the report. Defkalion has known their claims are wrong at least since the day after ICCF18, and probably much longer. Yet they are still in business, and they still claim it works. If it was was not fraud up until ICCF18, it surely is now. (It might have been an idiotic mistake up until ICCF18, but I think that is very unlikely, given all the times I and others warned them to do reality check tests.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: He said measuring the temperature of the cell. He doesn't say on what conditions. You assume with flow. He was talking about the ICCF18 demonstration, in which flow calorimetry was used. He was responding to the Gamberale report. Let me repeat the quote: *I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked* for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion . . . *Finally Xanthoulis pointed out* that the flow calorimetry measurements (measurement of thermal energy output by heating flowing water) were not important, but that the most important measurements were on the bare reactor, calculating the output thermal energy by measuring temperatures on various points of the reactor without heating any water (you then use a law called Stefan–Boltzmann lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law). He told me that these measurements had been sent to Gamberale twice. This seems to imply there were a separate set of tests without flowing water, and without heating water. I am not aware of such tests. Perhaps I overlooked them. The graphs sent by Xanthoulis are uploaded at Lewan's site. There is no indication on them when, where or how they were taken. I assumed they were from the ICCF18 demonstration. It is a perfectly valid technique to measure the cell wall temperature during flow calorimetry. I recommend you do that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge Agreements made in a joint venture are null and void after the partnership is terminated by the principle party(Rossi) on any information producing activity that occurs after the partnership is terminated. This is industrial espionage. It is never okay in the U.S. It is theft of trade secrets. If they purchased a unit and reverse engineered it, that would be okay, unless they signed an agreement not to do that. But when he lends them a machine under a contract that specifies they cannot do that, it is theft. I am pretty sure of that. Software vendors all have you click on an agreement not to decompile the object code or otherwise analyze the program. I doubt such agreements would stand up on court. Anyway, he says he never gave them a cell, and they did not actually steal the technique, since their machines do not work, so it is a moot point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
If DGT terminated the joint venture to the financial disadvantage of Mose, then Mose should take DGT to court to recover damages by presenting proof of such damages. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: He said measuring the temperature of the cell. He doesn't say on what conditions. You assume with flow. He was talking about the ICCF18 demonstration, in which flow calorimetry was used. He was responding to the Gamberale report. Let me repeat the quote: *I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked* for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion . . . *Finally Xanthoulis pointed out* that the flow calorimetry measurements (measurement of thermal energy output by heating flowing water) were not important, but that the most important measurements were on the bare reactor, calculating the output thermal energy by measuring temperatures on various points of the reactor without heating any water (you then use a law called Stefan–Boltzmann lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law). He told me that these measurements had been sent to Gamberale twice. This seems to imply there were a separate set of tests without flowing water, and without heating water. I am not aware of such tests. Perhaps I overlooked them. The graphs sent by Xanthoulis are uploaded at Lewan's site. There is no indication on them when, where or how they were taken. I assumed they were from the ICCF18 demonstration. It is a perfectly valid technique to measure the cell wall temperature during flow calorimetry. I recommend you do that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
From the DGT web page: NEW ANNOUNCEMENT SUBJECT: MATS LEWAN LUCAS GAMBERALE REPORTS DEFKALION DEMO PROVEN NOT TO BE RELIABLE. DEFKALION HAS EVALUATED THE SITUATION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POSSIBLE HIDDEN INTERESTS AND AGENDAS BEHIND SUCH REPORTS AND INTERVIEWS, THAT ONLY SHOW PARTIALLY AND SELECTAVLY OUR POSITION. DEFKALION WILL CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL AS A PRIVATE COMPANY REPRESENTING ONLY ITS OWN INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC ACCORDING TO OUR VISION.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have said many times that I know Rossi's trade secrets as a result of the unguarded things that Rossi says publicly. I doubt that you do. I do not think you can replicate one of his cells. The people at Defkalion cannot replicate one. At the next level, I am not privy to the vast amount of information the Jed gets from private sources that he uses to support his statements, allegations and system ideas.. 1. I do not get that much information, and I have related every relevant thing I did get. As I said, I and others told Defkalion to do reality check tests. 2. Everything else in this discussion is a matter of public record, such as the Lewan interview and the Gamberale paper. I have quoted from these public sources. There was also the article in which Xanthoulis bragged that they looked at the powder. I can't find that, but it is out there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Since fold fusion is currently not a valid technology from a legal point of view, any process that get information about the process is not illegal. It's every man for himself since cold fusion is currently outside of the protection of the legal system. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: He said they examined the powder with a mass spec in violation of agreements with Rossi, and without Rossi's knowledge Agreements made in a joint venture are null and void after the partnership is terminated by the principle party(Rossi) on any information producing activity that occurs after the partnership is terminated. This is industrial espionage. It is never okay in the U.S. It is theft of trade secrets. If they purchased a unit and reverse engineered it, that would be okay, unless they signed an agreement not to do that. But when he lends them a machine under a contract that specifies they cannot do that, it is theft. I am pretty sure of that. Software vendors all have you click on an agreement not to decompile the object code or otherwise analyze the program. I doubt such agreements would stand up on court. Anyway, he says he never gave them a cell, and they did not actually steal the technique, since their machines do not work, so it is a moot point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If DGT terminated the joint venture to the financial disadvantage of Mose, then Mose should take DGT to court to recover damages by presenting proof of such damages. I believe the people at the joint venture itself terminated it themselves, after they learned that the product does not work. Defkalion did not terminate it. Mose should take DGT to court because: 1. The product does not work. 2. DGT's methods of testing it were inadequate. 3. DGT prevented DE from doing proper tests. I am assuming they have proof of the last charge. The first two are self-evident. If they have no proof they should leave that out of the lawsuit. Actually, there is no point to suing them. I am pretty sure they have no money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Cold fusion replication has no legal standing and is totally subjective in the mind of the observer. There has been no regulatory standards establish to judge when a could fusion system is working and when it is not working. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have said many times that I know Rossi's trade secrets as a result of the unguarded things that Rossi says publicly. I doubt that you do. I do not think you can replicate one of his cells. The people at Defkalion cannot replicate one. At the next level, I am not privy to the vast amount of information the Jed gets from private sources that he uses to support his statements, allegations and system ideas.. 1. I do not get that much information, and I have related every relevant thing I did get. As I said, I and others told Defkalion to do reality check tests. 2. Everything else in this discussion is a matter of public record, such as the Lewan interview and the Gamberale paper. I have quoted from these public sources. There was also the article in which Xanthoulis bragged that they looked at the powder. I can't find that, but it is out there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Since fold fusion is currently not a valid technology from a legal point of view, any process that get information about the process is not illegal. That can't be true! That argument would never stand up in court. A court cannot decide what is valid technology or scientific truth. People can be sued for stealing trade secrets that have no bearing on reality or technology, such as marketing plans for pet rocks, a movie script, or the plans for an upcoming television show, and what the host's hairstyle will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
A legal action cannot be made in the field of could fusion because it is not a recognized and commercializeable technology. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If DGT terminated the joint venture to the financial disadvantage of Mose, then Mose should take DGT to court to recover damages by presenting proof of such damages. I believe the people at the joint venture itself terminated it themselves, after they learned that the product does not work. Defkalion did not terminate it. Mose should take DGT to court because: 1. The product does not work. 2. DGT's methods of testing it were inadequate. 3. DGT prevented DE from doing proper tests. I am assuming they have proof of the last charge. The first two are self-evident. If they have no proof they should leave that out of the lawsuit. Actually, there is no point to suing them. I am pretty sure they have no money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Cold fusion is in the same legal position as the Santa clause character in the movie, the *Miracle* on *34th Street* . On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Since fold fusion is currently not a valid technology from a legal point of view, any process that get information about the process is not illegal. That can't be true! That argument would never stand up in court. A court cannot decide what is valid technology or scientific truth. People can be sued for stealing trade secrets that have no bearing on reality or technology, such as marketing plans for pet rocks, a movie script, or the plans for an upcoming television show, and what the host's hairstyle will be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion replication has no legal standing and is totally subjective in the mind of the observer. That makes no difference at all. As I said, you can be sued for stealing a trade secret consisting of marketing plans and advertising jingles, or a movie script. Those are totally subjective and the value of them (if any) cannot be estimated. As long as a company says it is secret, and you steal it, you are guilty. Depending on your method of stealing it, you can face civil or criminal charges. Employees steal advertising plans and other nebulous things like that all the time. They are seldom actually sued. Bankers in the run-up to 2008 were filing lawsuits against employees who quit and set up complicated investment instruments, also known as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. The details were trade secrets. Employee contracts typically prevented them from working in banking for 2 years after they left the employ of the bank. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
What startles me it is the supposition that all, ALL, controversial issues surrounding Rossi, is the result of naivete from all parties. Like a competition to who can be the most idiot 2014-05-18 17:11 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: A legal action cannot be made in the field of could fusion because it is not a recognized and commercializeable technology. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
The currently excepted position of society is that Cold fusion is an invalid non patentable dream or fantasy. You cannot steal information about a dream or a fantasy. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion replication has no legal standing and is totally subjective in the mind of the observer. That makes no difference at all. As I said, you can be sued for stealing a trade secret consisting of marketing plans and advertising jingles, or a movie script. Those are totally subjective and the value of them (if any) cannot be estimated. As long as a company says it is secret, and you steal it, you are guilty. Depending on your method of stealing it, you can face civil or criminal charges. Employees steal advertising plans and other nebulous things like that all the time. They are seldom actually sued. Bankers in the run-up to 2008 were filing lawsuits against employees who quit and set up complicated investment instruments, also known as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. The details were trade secrets. Employee contracts typically prevented them from working in banking for 2 years after they left the employ of the bank. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Lewan might well be writing about the system development processes of Puss and Boots as far as the real world is concerned.. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The currently excepted position of society is that Cold fusion is an invalid non patentable dream or fantasy. You cannot steal information about a dream or a fantasy. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion replication has no legal standing and is totally subjective in the mind of the observer. That makes no difference at all. As I said, you can be sued for stealing a trade secret consisting of marketing plans and advertising jingles, or a movie script. Those are totally subjective and the value of them (if any) cannot be estimated. As long as a company says it is secret, and you steal it, you are guilty. Depending on your method of stealing it, you can face civil or criminal charges. Employees steal advertising plans and other nebulous things like that all the time. They are seldom actually sued. Bankers in the run-up to 2008 were filing lawsuits against employees who quit and set up complicated investment instruments, also known as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. The details were trade secrets. Employee contracts typically prevented them from working in banking for 2 years after they left the employ of the bank. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Currently, the rules in the field of cold fusion are what we say they are. I say that Jed's roles are malarkey. I like my rules better. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Lewan might well be writing about the system development processes of Puss and Boots as far as the real world is concerned.. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The currently excepted position of society is that Cold fusion is an invalid non patentable dream or fantasy. You cannot steal information about a dream or a fantasy. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion replication has no legal standing and is totally subjective in the mind of the observer. That makes no difference at all. As I said, you can be sued for stealing a trade secret consisting of marketing plans and advertising jingles, or a movie script. Those are totally subjective and the value of them (if any) cannot be estimated. As long as a company says it is secret, and you steal it, you are guilty. Depending on your method of stealing it, you can face civil or criminal charges. Employees steal advertising plans and other nebulous things like that all the time. They are seldom actually sued. Bankers in the run-up to 2008 were filing lawsuits against employees who quit and set up complicated investment instruments, also known as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction. The details were trade secrets. Employee contracts typically prevented them from working in banking for 2 years after they left the employ of the bank. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
From: Eric Walker Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton core. Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation? Only in the sense of electrogravity – as a unification of gravity and electromagnetism, not demanding the high energy of electroweak unification… which depending on one’s PoV is either unfulfilled or underappreciated. Bayles has a version which you may have heard of: http://www.electrogravity.com/
RE: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
Sounds good. But to fit observed tritium production you also must have an halo nucleus for tritium. And if the neutrons spiral down (quantified) emitting EUV in the beginning the size are shrinking and there would be x-rays and at gamma at the end.
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 18 May 2014 11:36:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] It builds on the insight of Bob, Dave and Robin that exclusivity to one channel can be ingrained if the QM reaction can happen only in a reversed mode where energy release precedes actual fusion as an operative condition, instead of the other way around- but not in the Mills way using electron orbitals. In fact, a diproton plus halo method can be described as uniquely positioned between those two main theories IF we can set the stage properly for a neutron halo configuration. Neutron stars are known to be copious emitters of EUV - the source of which was assumed to be gravitational. There is more to that story, if and when electrogravity replaces gravity alone, which happens at the Fermi level. The neutrons in neutron stars are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the phenomenon described by the Pauli exclusion principle, and the mass spacing in young neutron stars is consistent with halo nuclei as seen on earth. That may be more metaphor than coincidence. However, another piece of the puzzle is that helium on earth is known to have isotopes with a halo nucleus of the correct size for the EUV hypothesis which has been offered. See: Charge radii and neutron correlations in helium halo nuclei Papadimitriou, et al. 2011 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0223 Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine? Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this force, as the deuteron is already bound. BTW, the mass of the neutrons exceeds that of the protons, so a spiraling collapse isn't likely to involve only the neutrons, and rotational collapse of the charged protons in a magnetic field would result in cyclotron radiation too. (Probably at frequencies from radio up into the THz, depending on the strength of the local magnetic field.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine? Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this force, as the deuteron is already bound. Yes, of course. That's the basic problem. The nucleus does not emit in the range which we need to match experimental results (or lack thereof). The problem with normal nuclear radiation is that it is very short wavelength - which is not seen in LENR experiments. Working backwards from a spectrum which could have escaped detection, we can hypothesize that there needs to be an emitter geometry which is large enough to emit EUV or x-rays and at the same time, to delay actual fusion until enough energy has been dumped. That requirement eliminates any normal nucleus. This gets into antenna theory. How can a femtometer particle emit ultraviolet? Typically it cannot as the geometry is way too disproportionate. Possibly a halo nucleus can do this, or maybe the halo is too small as well. If that is the case, then the rationalization (of any kind of stepwise release) is dead.
RE: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
Good points. However, tritium could result from a completely different type of LENR reaction than helium (4He). 3He, if seen, would then be the decay product of tritium. Tritium is seen in Farnsworth Fusor, for instance and zero helium is seen - indicating that a different channel that looks more like hot fusion is available for tritium. From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net Sounds good. But to fit observed tritium production you also must have an halo nucleus for tritium. And if the neutrons spiral down (quantified) emitting EUV in the beginning the size are shrinking and there would be x-rays and at gamma at the end.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What startles me it is the supposition that all, ALL, controversial issues surrounding Rossi, is the result of naivete from all parties. Like a competition to who can be the most idiot Yeah, I agree. I sympathize with Gamberale. He seems smart and honest, and I believe his report. But who would be so naive as to agree to that gentlemen's agreement?!??? Why would you keep working on a project after they dismantle your verification test equipment without discussion. I would have raised hell! I would have thrown them out that afternoon. It is as if you just met someone in a noisy bar, and he says: I'll show you a trick! You put wallet and your money on the table, and then go to the men's room, hide your eyes, and count to a hundred. Rossi was naive for thinking those people would really pay him 100 million euros. Of all three parties, Rossi -- of all people -- seems to be the most sensible. That tells you we are dealing with strange people! He washed his hands of them long ago. I told him long after the breakup that I agree they are clowns and he was well rid of them. Rossi seems to attract strange people. So did Edison. - Jed
[Vo]:Of Dipoles and Ducks...
If it looks, acts, quacks, flies, and waddles like a duck, chances are it's a friggin' duck! J http://phys.org/news/2014-05-fast-curious-electrons-hurtle-interior.html The resulting data revealed each electron as two cones oriented opposite each other that converge at a point, . Electrons are dipole-like oscillations of the vacuum. One must keep in mind that the presence of other electrons (dipole-like oscillations) which are in the same atom, or in neighboring atoms, all mutually influence each other's 3D orientation. and the oscillators are somewhat free to rotate in 3D on their center which is where the cone-points come together. See the illustration in the article. -mark iverson
[Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity. http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html -mark
Re: [Vo]:Recent news on Podkletnov's gravity shielding work...
It says it's in a peer reviewed journal but doesn't say which one... After careful testing, Podkletnov has found the speed of the antigravity impulse to be approximately 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates does not conflict with modern interpretations of Relativity Theory. ***I have seen this claim before. Here's an example: http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/51645/ http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/51645/#msg282158 Oct 6, 2011 at 7:52am *m4ster r0shi* (2148) http://www.cplusplus.com/user/m4ster_r0shi/ This isn't news. *Prediction No. 11 (2003)*: Subquantum kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130). [...] *Verification (2008)*: The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, *Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light.* In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. *Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.* http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Just a FYI for those interested in superconductors and gravity… http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html -mark
[Vo]:Hilarious announcement on Defkalion website
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: DEFKALION HAS EVALUATED THE SITUATION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POSSIBLE HIDDEN INTERESTS AND AGENDAS BEHIND SUCH REPORTS AND INTERVIEWS . . . That's hilarious. Hidden interests and agendas? Defkalion Europe (DE) warned their customers the thing does not work and then closed down the company. That is not subtle! Their interest and agenda were not hidden. Imagine the day after Pearl Harbor, FDR goes to the Congress and says: We are trying to understand the hidden interests and agendas behind what seems to be an attack. We feel the Japanese Navy sent us a message, but we don't understand what it is. Could they be upset with us? Is it something we said? Yo: Defkalion. You want all caps? YOU LIED. YOUR MACHINE DOES NOT WORK. , THAT ONLY SHOW PARTIALLY AND SELECTAVLY OUR POSITION. I guess Lewan's direct quote from Xanthoulis does not count as their position. Well, at least he admits it is partially their position. DEFKALION WILL CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL . . . Their version of business as usual! Careening from one fiasco to the next. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious announcement on Defkalion website
What they say is true. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 16:39:46 -0700: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei. Note that I said electron mass, not electrons. In short I think that your mention of electron mass conversion is a straw man. As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays? Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 20:06:20 -0700: Hi, [snip] I'm not sure what other forces are thought to be at play, but I think that Ed believes the cracks in his theory to be responsible or partly responsible for confining the precursors to a single dimension. What has always bothered me with this is that a crack can never confine atoms into a row as well as the lattice itself. In short if it can happen in a crack, then why not in the lattice? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious announcement on Defkalion website
To make your points more meaningful, please follow the example of this front line journalist and provide a timeline and a complete list of characters as was done here. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Chronology-and-Dramatis-Personae-in-Andrea-Rossis-Confidence-Game.shtml Chronology and Dramatis Personae in Andrea Rossi's Confidence Game On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: DEFKALION HAS EVALUATED THE SITUATION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POSSIBLE HIDDEN INTERESTS AND AGENDAS BEHIND SUCH REPORTS AND INTERVIEWS . . . That's hilarious. Hidden interests and agendas? Defkalion Europe (DE) warned their customers the thing does not work and then closed down the company. That is not subtle! Their interest and agenda were not hidden. Imagine the day after Pearl Harbor, FDR goes to the Congress and says: We are trying to understand the hidden interests and agendas behind what seems to be an attack. We feel the Japanese Navy sent us a message, but we don't understand what it is. Could they be upset with us? Is it something we said? Yo: Defkalion. You want all caps? YOU LIED. YOUR MACHINE DOES NOT WORK. , THAT ONLY SHOW PARTIALLY AND SELECTAVLY OUR POSITION. I guess Lewan's direct quote from Xanthoulis does not count as their position. Well, at least he admits it is partially their position. DEFKALION WILL CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL . . . Their version of business as usual! Careening from one fiasco to the next. - Jed
