[Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
Hi all and especially Jed who know all which was written... The doctoral thesis of Olga Dmitriyeva have been found and interpreted as avidence challenging all LENr calorimetry http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/23/doctoral-thesis-concludes-pons-fleischmann-effect-artefact-of-chemical-reaction/ after reading quicly the thesis it seems not at al a general rebuttal but a warning agains some pitfal about D/H exchange heat, about hotspot in gas loading experiments. positively she concluded that Pd baking was an important point, and that calorimetry (flow?) should be prefered to thermometry (static/isoperibolic?). she also concluded that her finding did not apply to wet cell (too few heat dor D/H , and better mixing with fluid). Warthog told that D/H is a long time well known artifact, that newcommers and skeptics rediscover regularly because they don't have read all. Can someone more competent check if my arguments/interpretation are good ? is there other papers on D/H exchange heat ? and is there a list of those beware of artifact papers, to present to skeptic, to show it is not a believers community, but a scientific community...
[Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
Hi all and especially the historians. I have recently been challenged about my vision of Morisson personality, which I interpret under the vision of Charles Beaudette and the Titanic paper of Jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 is there a more positive interpretation of his personality, his history ? It is said Morrison was a great enthusiast at the beginning, but turned anti-lenr (because of evidence say the skeptic)... is it right, is there documents?
Re: [Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
I have met Douglas Morrison at ICCF-2 Como; actually my very short paper aabout cold fusion statistics see : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/my-cold-fusion-history-i.html was prepared to show him that he does not understand statistics of cold fusion experiments. He was actually a believer turned skeptic very disappointed by the slow progress in the field. He was initially convinced that cold fusion will progress fast toward applications but has lost his enthusiasm because this does not happened. He was not alone with this defeatist attitude. I also met at Como Prof Heinz Gerischer who had great expectations from CF- in 1991. Cold Fusion is real, however strange. Peter On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all and especially the historians. I have recently been challenged about my vision of Morisson personality, which I interpret under the vision of Charles Beaudette and the Titanic paper of Jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 is there a more positive interpretation of his personality, his history ? It is said Morrison was a great enthusiast at the beginning, but turned anti-lenr (because of evidence say the skeptic)... is it right, is there documents? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com … that D/H is a long time well known artifact, that newcommers and skeptics rediscover regularly because they don't have read all….Can someone more competent check if my arguments/interpretation are good ? If you can overlook my incompetence for a while, here are a few comments against the completely bogus argument of an exchange reaction in LENR. 1) Exchange heating is a red herring for many reasons, and is emblematic of the shallowness of skeptics who grasp at straws to avoid the big issues. 2) Most experiments use either D or H and not both together. Exchange heating, to be significant, would involve both together in relatively equal proportions 3) Exchange heating is typically a one-time event. After a few hours it is over and of no further significance. LENR experiments continue for months. 4) Exchange heating is chemical energy, but if LENR does involves a mechanism to make a chemical route repeatable in such a way as to be gainful and avoid (3) above, who cares? 5) The strategy of some skeptics has been to suggest a chemical pathway, overlook the long-term gain, and yet maintain that because a chemical pathway exists, this reaction can’t be nuclear nor gainful. But that is a logical fallacy. 6) In fact, a gainful chemical pathway is preferable, if it exists is a compound process, like the Mizuno findings. This preference is one of several logical fallacies which skeptics are falling into. 7) In short, one cannot disparage the gain of LENR by simply finding a chemical pathway. The long-term gain itself, when proved, negates exchange-heating as the only input, and indeed suggests that a chemical pathway is part of the nuclear process. To wit: 8) If Mizuno has been correct all along, with his recent finding at MIT that D is being converted into H to produce gain, then this explains some of the unusual dynamics which have been completely missed by others and considered to be an exchange reaction. 9) If D is being converted into H, then it would look to the skeptic like an exchange reaction, and that would be their knee-jerk criticism. 10) The bottom line is that the only way to counter the skeptics is with good data, presented openly. 11) Mizuno’s recent MIT presentation of good data was such an example which may have opened up a facet of LENR which was overlooked for twenty-plus years because even the cold-fusion advocates could not explain how D converts to H gainfully. We still cannot, but we are finally seeing glimpses. 12) It is not out of the question that “deuterium fission” possibly involving a new hype of positron “decay” - in order to effectively convert the deuteron to two protons, has been a part of cold fusion from the early days, which was ignored by everyone for this reason: QUOTE: from old physics textbook: Thus, although it is theoretically possible to observe a fourth mode of beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron, this reaction does not occur in nature. This could be wrong. In fact, in textbooks of the future, this paragraph could eventually read something like this: beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron was not documented in nature until the advent of LENR Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
Morrison published a series of news letters about cold fusion: Morrison Cold Fusion Update No. 1, 2, 3 . . . CFU 01.txt . . . The earliest one I have on my disk is #6. It is completely negative, and full of nonsense. As far as I know, the earlier ones were too. Morrison was a racist, by my standards. Before cold fusion emerged he went around giving lectures about how only Northern Europeans can do science. After cold fusion began he packaged this idea into what he called the regionalization of results theory, which is that people from Southern Europe, India, Asia and Africa are genetically incapable of doing calorimetry so their results are wrong. Morrison himself was incapable of doing simple arithmetic. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf Morrison was, as the British say, a piece of work. Meaning vile. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientific-dominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6 I too have been disturbed by an automatic dismissal of science reported from Asia. By sheer numbers, I think that will change.
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on this level small physical changes can reduce the randomness. 4: Quantum physics where it is believed God does actually pay dice. But this is in ignorance of the state of the aether behind such interactions. It could be that these things are not random at all. But even IF you believe that probability really exist, that does not apply to Rossi. And if you were to hide ignorance in the language of probability despite the obvious lack of 'chance', there is the fact that if you were at 1% confidence and then saw one tiny single sign, you could have to go to 100%. Such as an event that can only be explained by Rossi being genuine. Granted this is difficult with magicians (illusionists) and con men, but there has very likely been such a sign that either moves him to 100% or damn near 0%. Not that there is anything that could prove him false so easily including proof he faked a test as there might be genuine motives to fake a test despite being genuinely in possession of the real thing, it really is harder/impossible to prove a negative. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. I see.. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze's ego is astounding, thinking that he has things so well worked out that his ramblings about probability have meaning. Even if he were that good at working out probability, a few facts remain that make it worthless. 1: There is no such things as probability, things either happen or they don't. Rossi either IS real, or he is NOT real.. There is no such thing as probability in reality. 2: What is the difference between a 30% chance and a 70% chance? Answer 1: 40% Answer 2: Nothing much, both means that there is a very real possibility of it going either way. If you were invested in oil, it would mean that there is a very real risk that you must take seriously. If you are on the side of good, you know that there is an extraordinary possibility that might be worthy of attention, but might not pan out. But the difference between 0.1% chance and a 0.001% chance is huge! With the 0.1% there is a long shot, but one that could still very well pan out. Just 1 in 1,000 is not too distant odds to let one ignore something potentially significant good or bad. But 0.001 is 1 in ten million, an almost impossible long shot worthy of no attention/investment unless there are enough of these low level 'promises/threats' to bring it up to a level of relevance. John On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.51%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. At least this time Blaze increased the chances of Rossi being real on the basis of stuff that had SOMEthing to do with Rossi. So, he thinks the In Mercato Veritas is a sign of unrealness rather than the OBVIOUS thing it is: an old fashioned Rossism expression of confidence. This was exactly the way Rossi used to post before his friend Focardi got cancer. When Blaze talks about the lack of news leaks, he doesn't seem to realize he's engaging in a classic fallacy of arguing from silence. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Going to start publishing updates on this blog http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ rather than this mailing list. Rossi is now at 30% On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's interesting enough to generate a patent then it is worthwhile. The world would
[Vo]:OT: Basic Income Works!
Some results from a recent Basic Income experiment in India. The testimonials are worth a listen. Basic income IS NOT a panacea, but it does markedly improve people's lives. The moral panic that it leads incite laziness and alcoholism is unfounded. (13 minute video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvErJvuWrWc#t=25 https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUvErJvuWrWc%23t%3D25h=7AQFcSUoks=1 The results will be discussed in greater detail at the upcoming Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) conference later this week in Montreal. Harry
[Vo]:Japan Cold Fusion Society (JCFS) 14 proceedings
See: http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf May be slow to download. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
Kevin I think you know my opinions. I will not reiterate them. I will answer what I think is new and if I was unclear before in some cases. No, in no way am I making any statements about certain races or nationalities. I am aware of that there is no big differences when you add everything together. It is just a situation, which I think I have the 'instruments' to assess. You have identified some possible stock that might increase because of LENR. That is fine what is your problems? Make your investments and be happy. I might think that the stock market will react slowly to the report - I think the market introduction will be more significant and a more secure way to obtain the sought after gain. As you have mentioned companies that have to much invested in a LENR market might have problems to survive if the market does not evolve soon. (the report will not create business). It is a risk assessment situation. Good luck as they say in Vegas. In general you are talking about investing in small companies in an early stage and that is hard (but sometimes very rewarding). I mentioned BP and Shell as I have heard how some people think they will suffer dramatically because of deployment of LENR. I just think they are strong enough to be part of any significant change and therefore a 'negative' investment is even harder than investing in small companies with some ties to LENR. I have given you reasons. You just have not read them. The environment is not conducive to your conspiracy theory. Way too negative. I said that investing with Rossi would be good. I also said I did not think he was looking for a partner now. In which way does that make you lose respect for me? Your $250k example just tell me we have the same opinion. Not? No, I have no information exceeding yours. I am a Swede but I have no affiliation with anybody involved with this report/test. I am actually not interested investing in LENR affiliated companies. I am too much of a doer and do not like passive investments. In no way is any progress in LENR 'terrible ' for me. On the contrary I would like to see LENR deployed rather sooner than later. I have a few ideas how and a general interest as I think it would be beneficial for us all and coming generations. I said that; 'if YOU know they are ready to offer me an address for my PO (then you should) invest'. PO stands for purchase order, which I mentioned previous as my goal to get my hands on an early working, commercial LENR unit for personal use. I do not know what Jed has said about how long time it takes to invest. I say it takes rather a day than months. Yes, you need to have the funds so if you mean that the people doing the test is out collecting money than I understand your point. I could not even come to think along such lines. Way to manipulative and full of no good conspiracy suspicion. I would advice to forget your idea of conspiracy. Concentrate on finding the right investment for yourself and make sure it stays right or change 'horse'. I hope you see this as betting in a horse race because it is early and the outcome is rather difficult to assess - rewards are great if you can. The report we talk about is a very insignificant factor, in my opinion. We all would like to know where to invest. If I knew I would also look for sending some investment money that way. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I agree with you Kevin. Just keep in mind that sometimes there is too much risk and it is reasons to take what I say as another factor. ***I cannot keep it in mind because it is underdeveloped. It is a simple assertion. I think that given the opportunity a few people will take advantage in a small scale - totally of no significance. Maybe $thousands. ***If it were on the order of $Thousands, the report would have been published in May, a month after it was due. If it were on the order of $millions, it would be published by the end of June. And if the scale of human weakness is on the order of $Billions, the report will be published in September. Perhaps you see where I'm coming from. That is something we cannot avoid. Remember that I am not claiming that Swedes are more honest/fair in general. ***To be candid, that is exactly what you appear to be claiming, in a roundabout and obfuscating manner. Reality is that you also have the opportunity to take advantage of the knowledge you have. I hope you invest and will become a $billionaire. ***You and me both. I have invested in CYPW Cyclone Power, where Y.E. Kim is a consultant. I've had prior correspondence
Re: [Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
Deception can be a terribel factor... We all know many ex-smokers more fanatic against than many non-smokers. It raise also something that I painfully realized, that cold fusion only looks simple, but is awfully complex to harness... not so differently from many technology however, like semiconductors, steam engine, planes, superconductors... after a scientific breakthrough we all start to dream of how we will make cars fly, and then we realise that it explode not even with a good sound... 2014-06-24 13:51 GMT+02:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: I have met Douglas Morrison at ICCF-2 Como; actually my very short paper aabout cold fusion statistics see : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/my-cold-fusion-history-i.html was prepared to show him that he does not understand statistics of cold fusion experiments. He was actually a believer turned skeptic very disappointed by the slow progress in the field. He was initially convinced that cold fusion will progress fast toward applications but has lost his enthusiasm because this does not happened. He was not alone with this defeatist attitude. I also met at Como Prof Heinz Gerischer who had great expectations from CF- in 1991. Cold Fusion is real, however strange. Peter On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all and especially the historians. I have recently been challenged about my vision of Morisson personality, which I interpret under the vision of Charles Beaudette and the Titanic paper of Jed http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 is there a more positive interpretation of his personality, his history ? It is said Morrison was a great enthusiast at the beginning, but turned anti-lenr (because of evidence say the skeptic)... is it right, is there documents? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Douglas Morrison personality, personal history
this hierarchy of XXX (race, nations, science, labs) seems to be a strong factor in the dismissal of cold fusion, and by many skeptics, maybe innocently parroting, but probably comfortably applying inner hierarchy of people and organizations. I was shocked to see that results from India, China, Japan, did not increase the credibility of cold fusion experiments, not less tha from CEA done by engineers, by provincial US universities, and even by military labs... same for chemist or engineers results, rejected facing negative results from physicist. for me, initiated about groupthink and systemic fraud by finance and Internet bubble, it is evident that a variety of profession, nationality, type of organization (private, public, military, big , small) increase the credibility of replication claims. Motives are different, groupthink follow different hierarchies, money flow differently, risk, sanctions, retribution are differents, so like making various calorimetry, testing in various context is a good cross-checking... This rejection of varietry as a source of quality, make me think about the absurd demand that all replication be exact, as I know that exact replication replicate exactly the errors... and that in unknow phenomenons, errors are more reliable than chaotic phenomenon. Huizenga if I remind ell explained the tritium finding by a geography of assumed fraud. in a way the high impact journal supremacy is of the same kind... facing that it seems that Europe decided to align slowly (BAAA was teporary positive while bashed FP, but inally aligned to the US consensus). Today France, and EU is fully US-aligned (US Ivy league I mean), despite huge local results. Asia decided to fly under the radar, and neither stop nor talk of it. maybe is that tragedy not caused by a monolithic groupthink, but by a hierarchical US Ivy League physicist groupthink, that according to Benabou theory trickle down the various hiearchy or racism I discuss here... http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf from physicist to chemist to engineers... from US to europe to asia from high impact journal to low impact regional letters from Nobel to lab boss to professors to wiki/forum to students what seems reported here is tha the pathology started at the heard of Manhattan project pantheon, from an informal hate of change in the Elite, materialized by few uninfluential servant of the Lords for provided what was asked, and did the dirty job. did I understand well the situation from my naive point of view based on the few reports I analysed? 2014-06-24 15:58 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Morrison published a series of news letters about cold fusion: Morrison Cold Fusion Update No. 1, 2, 3 . . . CFU 01.txt . . . The earliest one I have on my disk is #6. It is completely negative, and full of nonsense. As far as I know, the earlier ones were too. Morrison was a racist, by my standards. Before cold fusion emerged he went around giving lectures about how only Northern Europeans can do science. After cold fusion began he packaged this idea into what he called the regionalization of results theory, which is that people from Southern Europe, India, Asia and Africa are genetically incapable of doing calorimetry so their results are wrong. Morrison himself was incapable of doing simple arithmetic. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf Morrison was, as the British say, a piece of work. Meaning vile. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone? Harry On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com … that D/H is a long time well known artifact, that newcommers and skeptics rediscover regularly because they don't have read all….Can someone more competent check if my arguments/interpretation are good ? If you can overlook my incompetence for a while, here are a few comments against the completely bogus argument of an exchange reaction in LENR. 1) Exchange heating is a red herring for many reasons, and is emblematic of the shallowness of skeptics who grasp at straws to avoid the big issues. 2) Most experiments use either D or H and not both together. Exchange heating, to be significant, would involve both together in relatively equal proportions 3) Exchange heating is typically a one-time event. After a few hours it is over and of no further significance. LENR experiments continue for months. 4) Exchange heating is chemical energy, but if LENR does involves a mechanism to make a chemical route repeatable in such a way as to be gainful and avoid (3) above, who cares? 5) The strategy of some skeptics has been to suggest a chemical pathway, overlook the long-term gain, and yet maintain that because a chemical pathway exists, this reaction can’t be nuclear nor gainful. But that is a logical fallacy. 6) In fact, a gainful chemical pathway is preferable, if it exists is a compound process, like the Mizuno findings. This preference is one of several logical fallacies which skeptics are falling into. 7) In short, one cannot disparage the gain of LENR by simply finding a chemical pathway. The long-term gain itself, when proved, negates exchange-heating as the only input, and indeed suggests that a chemical pathway is part of the nuclear process. To wit: 8) If Mizuno has been correct all along, with his recent finding at MIT that D is being converted into H to produce gain, then this explains some of the unusual dynamics which have been completely missed by others and considered to be an exchange reaction. 9) If D is being converted into H, then it would look to the skeptic like an exchange reaction, and that would be their knee-jerk criticism. 10) The bottom line is that the only way to counter the skeptics is with good data, presented openly. 11) Mizuno’s recent MIT presentation of good data was such an example which may have opened up a facet of LENR which was overlooked for twenty-plus years because even the cold-fusion advocates could not explain how D converts to H gainfully. We still cannot, but we are finally seeing glimpses. 12) It is not out of the question that “deuterium fission” possibly involving a new hype of positron “decay” - in order to effectively convert the deuteron to two protons, has been a part of cold fusion from the early days, which was ignored by everyone for this reason: QUOTE: from old physics textbook: Thus, although it is theoretically possible to observe a fourth mode of beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron, this reaction does not occur in nature. This could be wrong. In fact, in textbooks of the future, this paragraph could eventually read something like this: beta decay corresponding to the capture of a positron was not documented in nature until the advent of LENR Jones
RE: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
The diproton is unbound, due to Pauli exclusion. From: H Veeder The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
Perhaps binding energy is not the technically correct term. Let me put it this way. If a deuteron transitions to diproton before it becomes two protons, what is the potential energy of the diproton? harry On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The diproton is unbound, due to Pauli exclusion. *From:* H Veeder The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Excitonic Collapse as the proximate cause of gain in LENR
Mark, I like the sound of this but it is difficult to imagine the details as applied to LENR unless there is a TDS material involving nickel oxide or something similar. There could be since nickel oxide is so unusual in its physical properties. Here is a similar paper from the one you cited with a different TDS. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6173/864.short _ From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Jones, I posit that Hotson’s sea of ‘negative’ energy is simply the opposing side of the electron’s dipole-like oscillation of the vacuum… I posted an article on 5/18 which is yet more evidence that the electron is at least in line with my hypothesis: The resulting data revealed each electron as two cones oriented opposite each other that converge at a point, . https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93678.html -Mark _ From: Jones Beene Subject: [Vo]:Excitonic Collapse as the proximate cause of gain in LENR An article turned up (“before its time”, literally) in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Volume 727, 1 August 2014, Pages 53–58 which could have relevance to LENR insofar as understanding the mechanics for gain in some types of experiments – especially those where significant local voltage fluctuations exist, since the voltage swings can be a function of SPP formation or decay. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572665714002276 “Electrochemical supercapacitor behavior of α-Ni(OH)2 nanoparticles…” by Vijayakumar and Muralidharan. The authors claim that Ni(OH)2 nanoparticles exhibit specific capacitance of over 500 F g−1 (paywall prohibits more detail). attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
From: H Veeder Perhaps binding energy is not the technically correct term. Let me put it this way. If a deuteron transitions to diproton before it becomes two protons, what is the potential energy of the diproton? harry OK that much is known. The resonant spectrum of the diproton is around .45 MeV which is about the same as electron/positron annihilation, but protons are unlikely to cause much bremsstrahlung so this could go un-noticed. There is electrostatic repulsion fighting against the strong force … but there is a brief lifetime for the protons to be together, even if ostensibly unbound. The lifetime is somewhere around 10^(-21) s. Jones Beene wrote: The diproton is unbound, due to Pauli exclusion. From: H Veeder The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
I'm not competent to comment on her chemical theories, but some of her results bear looking into : The requirement for both D and H (DD,DH,HD,HH experiments) The water requirement (excess heat,bake,no excess,absorb,excess heat). The hotspot/coldspot calorimetry error.
RE: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
BTW – if anyone has the inclination, it should be possible to work out the hypothetical energy balance of the Mizuno experiment (MIT colloquium) based on the volume of the reactor, initial gas pressure of deuterium, ending gas pressure of hydrogen etc, with which to compare against the claimed energy of the run – 100 megajoules over 30 days. (eat your heart out, JET). Thus there are three or more values to reconcile – the measured excess energy, the calculated excess based only on proton energy following the “fission” or whatever is happening - and the calculated reaction excess of alternative reactions, including the one posted earlier where the presumed reaction is D2 + Ps2 - 2H2 … which is to say that one deuterium molecule (or ion) interacts with one positronium molecule, such that the two positrons and two neutrons (from the D2 atoms) fuse to protons, resulting eventually in 2 hydrogen molecules... actually 4 protons, 4 electrons and two electron antineutrinos. The Mizuno results should show a modest gain per reacted deuteron, about 15% of the case if there was some kind of fusion going on, which explains the 100+ megajoules which Mizuno saw over 30 days with few gammas, and which can be compared to the .45 MeV per deuterium atom which is “split”. If this was fusion, the gain would be no less than 7 times higher per initial deuteron. From: Jones Beene From: H Veeder Perhaps binding energy is not the technically correct term. Let me put it this way. If a deuteron transitions to diproton before it becomes two protons, what is the potential energy of the diproton? harry OK that much is known. The resonant spectrum of the diproton is around .45 MeV which is about the same as electron/positron annihilation, but protons are unlikely to cause much bremsstrahlung so this could go un-noticed. There is electrostatic repulsion fighting against the strong force … but there is a brief lifetime for the protons to be together, even if ostensibly unbound. The lifetime is somewhere around 10^(-21) s. Jones Beene wrote: The diproton is unbound, due to Pauli exclusion. From: H Veeder The lack of google results concerning the value of the binding energy of a diproton is noteworthy. In fact I couldn't find any value. Can anyone? Harry attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:[OT 99%] and [1% On-Topic] Clinton's speech analized concering what he knows about UFOs
Vorts!! For your enjoyment... I'm headed to Salt Lake City this 4th of July weekend to attend a popular Science Fiction convention, Westercon, where It's possible I may meet some interesting aliens. ;-) You are our last hope! http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=39qid=189 Now, after everyone has been fully primed to notice odd facial characteristics and other abe-normal mannerisms, may I interest a few adventurous souls in viewing the following You Tub installment. This is a 36 minute clip concerning an in-depth analysis of Bill Clinton after recently appearing on Jimmy Kimmel Live on April 2, 2014. This is an in-depth analysis Bill Clinton's behaviors and mannerisms as talk show host Jimmy Kimmel interviewed the president concerning what he might know about UFOS and aliens. Subject: Analysis of Bill Clinton's Interview on UFOs with Jimmy Kimmel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THRIigM5iI8 An in-depth analysis was conducted by Ben Hanson, from the TV show Fact or Fiction. Mr. Hanson has degrees in the behavior sciences, such as sociology and criminology. He spent several years focusing on State level investigations, primarily on child sex crimes and white collar crimes. He also worked for a time in federal law enforcement. He currently does the lecture circuit where one of the topics he discusses focuses on the profiling of hoaxers. 1% on-topic It might possibly be informative if we could interest Ben in analyzing certain statements and claims that have been made over the years by Rossi (of eCat fame) and Randy (of BLP fame). /1% on-topic As in any study concerning the art of deciphering human psychology this is an inexact science. Trying to interpret what someone had (subliminally) meant to say will always open to many different interpretations. Ben repeatedly points this problem out as he offered up several educated opinions concerning what Mr. Clinton knows (or doesn't know) about UFOs and aliens. I found Ben's analysis of Mr. Clinton's replies fascinating to say the least. Enjoy! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
So now Blaze won't even post on his own thread, instead posting to his own blog about rumors http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ of delay around the next ITP report... Rumors? The damned report was due in April. That ain't no rumor. It is delayed. I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.44%, taking into account the direction of the wind and the stock price for CYPW Cyclone Power. Then Blaze goes on to say that there may be some ambiguity in the results that the researchers are having trouble digesting and so are delaying the report until they figure them out. We estimate this at about 60% chance. And how is that supposed to have any bearing whatsoever on whether Rossi is real? If Rossi weren't real, there'd be NO ambiguity in the results and he'd be a pile of stones right now. I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.39% Then blaze gives a 40% chance that they believe they have seen spectacular results and they need to get their ducks in a row because it’s going to attract a lot of attention and their reputations are all on the line. So, on the basis of 40% chance of SPECTACULAR results contrasted with 60% chance of AMBIGUOUS results, he DOWNGRADES Rossi? That is a 100% chance that Rossi has generated a real effect. AMBIGUOUS results mean that Rossi is Real. Otherwise those guys would have published quickly and decisively in APRIL, when the report was due. I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.33%. Then blaze talks about Rossi talking about his 1MW plant. He seems to be diverting attention away from the reports... Uh, blaze: What reports are those? The ones that aren't even out yet? How can he divert attention away from something that hasn't even been published yet. It's OBVIOUS he's trying to fill the dead air time. I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.29%. Then Blaze injects a supposition: which may because he’s concerned those results aren’t favorable. Wow, dude. Like. Yer some kinda genius er sumthin. Rossi said PLAINLY on his website that he has anxiety over the upcoming results. They could be positive, could be negative. So, blaze is saying that his one supposition is supported by his other supposition so he's downgrading Rossi. What a dipwad. Then blaze blows himself out of the water: If we see confirmation of this delay to September (say nothing by mid July), we will likely reduce the probability to 25% that Rossi is Real. How incredibly stupid. Delay is due to the fact that they found something and need to get their ducks in a row. If they found NOTHING, their report would have come out in April. Blaze, pull your head out.I'm constrained to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.15%. And what would blaze be, if not wishy-washy? Here he tries to equivocate: If a report comes out before that date, be warned – you could potentially see a massive swing upwards to 50% or even 60% that Rossi is Real.All I can say is: Wow, blaze yer like, so friggin brilliant... NOT. Where do you come up with this crap? And then blaze ends with POTO, saying the report has the potential of being a very significant inflection point in this Andrea Rossi / E-Catelyzer Saga. For those not in the know, POTO is Pointing Out The Obvious. So I'm constrained, finally, to decrease my ASSessment of an ASSurance that Blaze will pull his head out of his ASinine hind quarters down to 7.09%. Those are not good odds. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/probability-rossi-is-real-is-now-28/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Well I worded that strongly to drive home a point, we often hide our ignorance in the talk of probability. There are 4 domains in which we apply probability. 1: Things which are set and we are ignorant of, no actual element of chance exist, such as with Rossi. 2: Macro chance, things that we fail to predict but maybe could if we did sufficiently in-depth analysis, this could be likened to the spinning of a wheel of wheel of fortune 3: While a machine could be used to spin a wheel and get the desired selection to come up on a wheel, some things seem beyond our ability to predict. The experiment with falling BB's hitting pegs and being seemingly effected by the intent of the observer in university studies backs up that this is maybe beyond modeling within known physics/ Rolling a dice is similar, but we do know dice can be loaded showing that even on
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: You have identified some possible stock that might increase because of LENR. That is fine what is your problems? Make your investments and be happy. ***My problem is that these guys are unconscionably delaying the report that could boost my investment out of the clutches of penny stock delisting and bankruptcy. I might think that the stock market will react slowly to the report - I think the market introduction will be more significant and a more secure way to obtain the sought after gain. ***Well, normally I'd ask why you think such a thing, but our interaction has been a bit torturous so I'll just drop it. As you have mentioned companies that have to much invested in a LENR market might have problems to survive if the market does not evolve soon. (the report will not create business). ***Exactly what gives you that idea? It is a risk assessment situation. Good luck as they say in Vegas. ***And my assessment of the risk going in was that these guys would generate their report within a reasonable timeframe. They are beyond a reasonable timeframe. They are now into the timeframe where the most probable reason for delay is they're trying to get their friends family rich. In general you are talking about investing in small companies in an early stage and that is hard (but sometimes very rewarding). I mentioned BP and Shell as I have heard how some people think they will suffer dramatically because of deployment of LENR. ***I think those companies would suffer dramatically but I do not know how to take advantage of it. Here on Vortex we had Blaze Spinnaker talking about 2 stocks where you could short oil. I pointed out that if it requires a 2 year put option, what happens in 2 years + one day? Even if LENR breaks out, you gain nothing and lose it all. I just think they are strong enough to be part of any significant change and therefore a 'negative' investment is even harder than investing in small companies with some ties to LENR. ***A bit far off the main original point of our interaction. I have given you reasons. You just have not read them. ***You have not given reasons. You have given assertions. The environment is not conducive to your conspiracy theory. Way too negative. ***$billions on the table has a way of generating conduciveness. Way too negative is just a cliche. I said that investing with Rossi would be good. I also said I did not think he was looking for a partner now. In which way does that make you lose respect for me? Your $250k example just tell me we have the same opinion. Not? ***Then answer the contention of exactly how is a small investor supposed to invest in Rossi? You're obfuscating. I said that; 'if YOU know they are ready to offer me an address for my PO (then you should) invest'. PO stands for purchase order, which I mentioned previous as my goal to get my hands on an early working, commercial LENR unit for personal use. ***Then explain how that helps a small investor to invest in LENR or even in Rossi. I do not know what Jed has said about how long time it takes to invest. I say it takes rather a day than months. Yes, you need to have the funds so if you mean that the people doing the test is out collecting money than I understand your point. I could not even come to think along such lines. Way to manipulative and full of no good conspiracy suspicion. ***Your reasoning appears to be... I don't like it, so therefore it can't happen. I would advice to forget your idea of conspiracy. ***It would be a small conspiracy. 7 professors or even less. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with what happens when humans are tempted. Conspiracies HAVE happened in the energy space, over smaller amounts of money and with wider numbers of people: Look at Enron, for goodness sakes. Concentrate on finding the right investment for yourself and make sure it stays right or change 'horse'. ***You mean, sell at a loss just because these Swedes are greedy and lazy at the same time? I hope you see this as betting in a horse race because it is early and the outcome is rather difficult to assess - rewards are great if you can. The report we talk about is a very insignificant factor, in my opinion. We all would like to know where to invest. If I knew I would also look for sending some investment money that way. ***That is why I set up a contract at BetMoose where you can bet DIRECTLY on the report, on Rossi, on various things. If I could figure out a way to write a contract that skeptopaths will accuse these 7 scientists of not being independent, I'd put all my money there. Even at a loss from where I'm currently invested -- CYPW Cyclone Power. .
