RE: [Vo]:Excitonic Collapse as the proximate cause of gain in LENR
Jones, Don’t see any mention in your ref of an electron being a dipole-like entity.. so not sure how related our thoughts are on this??? No time to dive down any rabbit holes with ya, but can perhaps help find some! ;-) The C-screening caught my eye on this paper… Coulomb screening of 2D massive Dirac fermions http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/83/3/035002 “A model of 2D massive Dirac fermions, interacting with instantaneous 1/r Coulomb interaction, is presented in order to mimic the physics of gapped graphene. The static polarization function is calculated explicitly to analyze the screening effect at finite temperature and density. The results are compared with the massless case. We also show that various results in other works can be reproduced with our model in a straightforward and unified manner.” -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: 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]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Kevin, I think you failed to account for CME and sunspot activity being very low. Elevated sunspot activity is related to aberrant behavior. This will reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down another 0.013% down to 7.077% On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I think you failed to account for CME and sunspot activity being very low. Elevated sunspot activity is related to aberrant behavior. This will reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down another 0.013% down to 7.077% ***Well, that's a good point. In addition, there is the spot market price of Preparation H. However, I notice that you're using four significant figures and I'm using three. Your 7.077% would get rounded up and make it 7.08% in my dataset. My data isn't accurate enough to go down as far as you have. Do you have a better data collection scheme? If so, please let us all know. So with your input about sunspots CMEs, and the Preparation H thing, I am constrained to reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down to 7.06%. We appear to be very close in our analysis. However, there is little doubt that blaze would take the difference and see it as a reason to downgrade Rossi-Being-Real another 10%.
[Vo]:Metal particles in solids aren't as fixed as they seem
I don't know if this is relevant, but maybe... Metal particles in solids aren http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/metal-particles-solids-aren%E2%80%99t-fix ed-they-seem?et_cid=4014225et_rid=54737039type=cta 't as fixed as they seem Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Scottsdale, Arizona US Firmware guru StimWave technologies --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
Hagelstein recently (last 2 years) wrote a paper (two?) analysing calorimetry errors, and showing that PF was quite good. It's not on lenr-canr or his MIT website. Any clues? ps : A certain expert in calorimetry has just showed up on wiki cold fusion/ talk. (No, not Mary! Had a big run-in with Storms and others). (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
Kevin, I just said stock prices will not improve before the big players come in and they are not going to read 'the report' and d raw conclusions. 'The report' will do nothing for business. After market intro the suppliers of auxiliary equipment has a market. Then there will be competition and that will be one by the one with the best position (position is technology, management, organization, capital etc.) . Hard to predict today. OK I understand your frustration. However, you have invested and it has turned out to be a hard journey. Are you going to cut your losses or are you going to ride it out. See last paragraph. It is your decision and investments has to be done with money you have set aside. (I have done it the other way . . .) and you are willing to gamble with. Then it all comes down to your skills and luck. To blame others and circumstances is futile. Outside things can be an explanation but not the cause. Your assessment of dealing with put options is correct. I would hesitate as I think such companies as the energy companies has capital and are well oiled machines (pun not intended). On the other hand there is a possibility to BIG gain. 2 years too short and I would wait until LENR is commercial. Easier to assess the situation. The ideas that market is cornered and conspiracy is dominating should keep your money out of the market. If you do not believe in your own investment than nobody else will and therefor nobody wants to buy your investments. Thus your investment will decline in value. Bad spiral - not a cliche. I would not invest without a personal engagement just for that reason. That is not an advice it is a personal opinion that fits me. I do not know how to invest in Rossi. I think that there is a price but I think it is very high and the only one that can answer your question is Rossi. I f you know there is a LENR product ready for the market - INVEST. (Let me know so I can buy one.) Then you say Your reasoning appears to be... I don't like it, so therefore it can't happen. That is in response too that I do not know what Jed's opinion is. Confused? I think so and full of negativism, which will take you nowhere. Yes, Enron happened. Conspiracy was perhaps a part of the game later on. I will not discuss the issue with you but that I think that some good ideas were allowed to become way too big and then illegal methods were used to camouflage the situation. My point being that the illegal actions was not a conspiracy. It was done to cover overoptimism. More common than we know and sometimes it works. Your negative and quick judgement is not conducive to catch the opportunity, in my opinion. No do not sell because Swedes are lazy or anything else to do with the Swedes. Sell if you do not think your investment is going to grow. Stop blaming others for short term disturbances in the market. Believe in your investment, get involved but stop putting blame on others. You say early in your response ; ***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. I did answer that above. However, I do not want you to be tortured so let us end it here. Really I think you have heard 'my two cents'. In addition I need no more opinions that are influenced by cynicism based on human behavior. In my opinion most people are meaning well. Fear and remorse are driving the negative side often without a connection to reality and never with sustainable result. 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 Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
At 10:01 AM 6/25/2014, you wrote: Hagelstein recently (last 2 years) wrote a paper (two?) analysing calorimetry errors, and showing that PF was quite good. It's not on lenr-canr or his MIT website. Any clues? Found it --- http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf#page=138 (Though I think there was another. But that's all I needed).
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Hagelstein recently (last 2 years) wrote a paper (two?) analysing calorimetry errors, and showing that PF was quite good. It's not on lenr-canr or his MIT website. Any clues? Found it --- http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf#page=138 (Though I think there was another. But that's all I needed). That is at LENR-CANR.org: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedg.pdf#page=138 All of the JCMNS volumes are. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
I wrote: That is at LENR-CANR.org: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedg.pdf#page=138 More to the point, it is in the index listed under Hagelstein, P.L. So you can find it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
Longchampts in CEA lab (he is research engineer AFAIK) have reproduced exactly FP http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf Mioles have compared the quality of calometries viteweed FP+Longchampt and Ivy league... http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf 2014-06-25 19:01 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: Hagelstein recently (last 2 years) wrote a paper (two?) analysing calorimetry errors, and showing that PF was quite good. It's not on lenr-canr or his MIT website. Any clues? ps : A certain expert in calorimetry has just showed up on wiki cold fusion/ talk. (No, not Mary! Had a big run-in with Storms and others). (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
I must admit to having bad luck searching the library. First, the google search is overwhelming, because it picks out content, so all references to a paper are presented. Next, if I (finally) get to Library Summary and do a quick search with an author's name I'm immediately taken to a second screen. Is there a link to get there directly? But that only offers the FIRST author's name, which in the case was Miles, not Hagelstein. Library Detail also jumps from Quick search to another screen. Again, a direct link would be useful. You might also point out that substrings are OK -- eg Any author: hagel title:calorim will find it. And I think it's indexed under Miles, not Hagelstein. Anyway, I guess I've finally learned how to use it. - Original Message - Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:39:00 PM More to the point, it is in the index listed under Hagelstein, P.L. So you can find it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein calorimetry paper
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I must admit to having bad luck searching the library. First, the google search is overwhelming, because it picks out content, so all references to a paper are presented. Try search terms such as: hagelstein calorimetry jcmns The term jcmns or some other specific word reduces the total number of finds. Next, if I (finally) get to Library Summary and do a quick search with an author's name I'm immediately taken to a second screen. Is there a link to get there directly? Not sure what you mean by that. I often use this: http://lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm It does not work well with Hagelstein because there 217 appearances of that name! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Kevin, let me fill you in on a secret of making high precision ASSesments. If you are going to pull figures from your ass, you can make them as many decimal places as you like limited by a factor or 3 things. #1 How unchecked you have let your ego grow. #2 How Cheek-y you are. #3 How big an ass you are (or have). I happen to be wearing socks today with 'Cheeky' written on them (part of a set with Awesome, Happy, Angry etc...). So I could go a whole extra decimal place today if I wanted. Before you know it you will be going to 5 significant figures with just a little practass! On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, I think you failed to account for CME and sunspot activity being very low. Elevated sunspot activity is related to aberrant behavior. This will reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down another 0.013% down to 7.077% ***Well, that's a good point. In addition, there is the spot market price of Preparation H. However, I notice that you're using four significant figures and I'm using three. Your 7.077% would get rounded up and make it 7.08% in my dataset. My data isn't accurate enough to go down as far as you have. Do you have a better data collection scheme? If so, please let us all know. So with your input about sunspots CMEs, and the Preparation H thing, I am constrained to reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down to 7.06%. We appear to be very close in our analysis. However, there is little doubt that blaze would take the difference and see it as a reason to downgrade Rossi-Being-Real another 10%.
Re: [Vo]:Olga Dmitriyeva thesis , D/H exchange heat, hotspot...
I couldn't find a clear statement of the excess heat in her experiments. Fig VII says between 10J and 35J in a run Fig VIII says 50mW Sample size in one case is 0.12g Are those numbers high enough to count as a successful run, or is she measuring a small electrochemical effect in an LENR-inactive sample?
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, I just said stock prices will not improve before the big players come in and they are not going to read 'the report' and d raw conclusions. ***You're talking about big cap stocks. I'm talking about small cap stocks. CYPW Cyclone Power in particular. 'The report' will do nothing for business. ***Not for big fatcats. But CYPW aint a big fatcat. After market intro the suppliers of auxiliary equipment has a market. Then there will be competition and that will be one by the one with the best position (position is technology, management, organization, capital etc.) . Hard to predict today. ***Not really. Oil will plummet, so will solar power. Waste Heat Engine companies (like CYPW) will go up, as well as desalination companies. To blame others and circumstances is futile. Outside things can be an explanation but not the cause. ***If they are the explanation then they are the cause. These swedes are not fulfilling their obligation. I'd bet that this is exactly what Rossi thinks. They screwed up the last report, they're screwing up this one. They had six months. All of us KNEW that there should likely be isotopic analysis with the 6-month test, but lo and behold!, these swedes just discovered the need for it. Are they REALLY that incompetent? Hard to believe. Are they human, subject to human temptations? Easy to believe. They are engaging in insider trading on their knowledge. Your assessment of dealing with put options is correct. I would hesitate as I think such companies as the energy companies has capital and are well oiled machines (pun not intended). On the other hand there is a possibility to BIG gain. ***CYPW stands to have BIG gain. They shot up 100X on CONVENTIONAL news in 2007. This is black-swan-now-you're-in-the-spotlight news. But the swedes are so friggin lazy, incompetent, and morally corrupt that they have changed the situation on the ground. 2 years too short and I would wait until LENR is commercial. ***You seem not to realize that the stock market is all about future value. If you wait until LENR is commercial, EVERYONE will be clamoring to get in on the action. It will make the dotcom boom look like a lemonade stand. I think I have learned enough about your perspective not to listen to your advice. Easier to assess the situation. ***Again, you seem not to realize what the whole stock market thing is about. By the time you're taking stock tips from the bellman, it's time to get out. That's what you are promoting here. The ideas that market is cornered ***It is Absafreekinglutely cornered by these swedes. The market right now is for information. Like Gordon Gecko said, The most valuable commodity I know is information. They have it, and they are hoarding it. But you can't see that they might possibly be just a tad bit tempted to act on the $Trillion information they possess. and conspiracy is dominating should keep your money out of the market. ***Cliche, meaningless cliche, don't know what your obfuscating and going on about. If you do not believe in your own investment than nobody else will and therefor nobody wants to buy your investments. Thus your investment will decline in value. Bad spiral - not a cliche. I would not invest without a personal engagement just for that reason. That is not an advice it is a personal opinion that fits me. *** don't know what your obfuscating and going on about.again... you're pretty far afield from your initial set of assertions. I do not know how to invest in Rossi. ***Then why did you give such advice upthread? Indeed, it was heavily weighted advice from you. I think that there is a price but I think it is very high and the only one that can answer your question is Rossi. ***In other words (though YOU didn't answer the question), there are precious few ways for a common man to invest in LENR or Rossi. CYPW Cyclone Power is one of them. All your endless obfuscations haven't furthered the common man's desire to support and invest in LENR one iota. I f you know there is a LENR product ready for the market - INVEST. (Let me know so I can buy one.) ***You appear to be a market lagger, not a market leader. Then you say Your reasoning appears to be... I don't like it, so therefore it can't happen. That is in response too that I do not know what Jed's opinion is. ***No. It was in response to this: 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. Confused? I think so and full of negativism, which will take you nowhere. ***your free advice is duly noted and taken into account how much I paid for it. Yes, Enron happened. Conspiracy was perhaps a part of the game later on. I will not discuss the issue with you but
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
So... in blaze's case: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, let me fill you in on a secret of making high precision ASSesments. If you are going to pull figures from your ass, you can make them as many decimal places as you like limited by a factor or 3 things. #1 How unchecked you have let your ego grow. ***Pretty big. #2 How Cheek-y you are. ***Pretty damned cheeky. He admitted to wanting to make money from Vorticians, and stopped replying on his OWN THREADs. #3 How big an ass you are (or have). ***It is supposition that blaze has a bit ass. But it is simply observation to realize he IS a big ass. I happen to be wearing socks today with 'Cheeky' written on them (part of a set with Awesome, Happy, Angry etc...). So I could go a whole extra decimal place today if I wanted. ***That's pretty much what blaze appears to have done. So is it hubris to follow suit, thinking he might have a better methodology of data collection? Before you know it you will be going to 5 significant figures with just a little practass! ***And you could join blaze in his happy place.
