Re: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Alain Sepeda]

This is experimental research, to explore where no man have been before

note that Ed Storms in his books reports that some thin film of platinum
deposited during electrolysis from the anode seems to activate other
metal...
moreover maybe impurities are the active lattice...
or it is just intriguing artifact


2014-08-17 0:51 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

>  This experiment is abysmal. What a waste of time and effort by highly
> skilled guys who were inquisitive enough to try something.
>
>
>
> A few hours consultation with an LENR expert and they could have possibly
> seen something interesting on merely the switch to better electrodes.
>
>
>
> Why platinum instead of Pd? Why Al ? Makes no sense.
>
>
>
> Why not use a few hundred meters of .1 mm nickel wire as did Mizuno?
>
>
>
> Did they really think Pt would be effective? Based on what?
>
>
>
> It is infuriating to see what could have been a decent effort go to waste.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:30 PM
> *To:* Vortex List
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine
>
>
>
> just booeing trying to avoid a troll patent his plane electric "fan"  used
> with LENR...
>
>
>
> more surprising is this finding in Germany
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/555-Researchers-from-German-University-and-Aerospace-Agency-investigate-LENR-with-Co/?postID=1057#post1057
>
> a modest test by 2 researchers from a university and... german aerospace
> agency
>
>
>
> http://elib.dlr.de/89820/1/LENR_Report_paper.v3.pdf
>
>
>
> that one is for jed, at least as a citation
>
>
>
> just a test baloon it seems, to ask funding
>
>
>
> 2014-08-16 22:35 GMT+02:00 Ron Kita :
>
> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
>
>
> Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/
>
>
>
> The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was
> covered at Vortex
>
> Ad Astra,
>
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Axil Axil]

*But what's in it for me?*

This is what your world is all about, This is the principle that guides
you. But remember the words ... it is better to give than receive.

You can memorize all words of the holy books and recite them flawlessly,
but still not take them to heart as a path to live by. Good by poor soul,
you are dead to me.


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  Fine, I will dig up my equipment from storage and send you pictures.
>
> But what's in it for me?  What do I get for my effort and wasted time?
> Are you willing to back up your challenge to me?
>
> How about making this interesting.  If I can show proof that I spent
> money, time and effort replicating this Flat Plate Heat Exchanger
> contraption, will you shut up forever and leave vortex?  If I can't, I will
> leave vortex forever.
>
> Deal?
>
> And Let's make this definite by laying down some rules of the bet.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
> Scan your lab notes and show it to us. Some data would be nice too.
>
>
> 2014-08-17 0:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>> [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
>> for Automatic Cleanup! (jojoiznar...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
>> 
>> | More info
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;
>> but I still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to
>> try to replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

I've seen this doc before my friend. I've studied Piantelli's patents before.  
This has nothing to do with Rossi's mechanism.

Quite honestly my friend, you have a penchant for taking data from various 
sources and apply it out of context as support for your theory.  You call it 
"connecting the dots", I call it "unbridled speculation" - and that is 
counter-productive.

Speculation is the purpose of this forum, as you rightly pointed out.  But now 
that your theories have been challenged.  It is now time to take that challenge 
seriously and see if you can address that challenge by modifications to your 
theory.  I believe we call that "scientific method".  

BTW, I am not speculating nanoantennas as the NAE - you are.  I am speculating 
that the nanospikes break off from the mother sea-urchin microparticle.  These 
nanoparticles are the NAE.  Quite different from your nanoantenna, wouldn't you 
say?


Jojo


  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1


  See a picture of piantelli's nano antennas. I wonder if this conforms with 
your idea of a nano antenna.



  On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Quite obviously it is not, 


How can you say this?  I know, you just wiggle your lips. 



On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

  Yes my friend, I understand this.  But is the control system regulating 
the reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the nanoantennas?   
Quite obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would bring this up.



  Jojo



  - Original Message - 
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue. 
It is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's 
temperature.


A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.


Do you understand this?



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

  But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  
Even if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you 
still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism can 
not be correct for this simple reason.

  Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like 
Darwinian Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory 
is, how Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how 
novel Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists 
can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise from 
non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.  The 
validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the plausibility of 
this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution is a sham.

  My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  
It does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain the 
root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.



  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel 
spherical nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel 
nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure 
such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  
If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if 
it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It 
will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it 
gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result 
of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle 
is still small enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes 
too big, then it stops being the NAE.


The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano 
antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna . The 
beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The nano 
antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is usually 
unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance, That is why a 
reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano antenna 
destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element through 
transmutation 



   

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

So, we're getting personal now, eh?

Please divert your efforts into answering my objection.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  Quite obviously it is not, 


  How can you say this?  I know, you just wiggle your lips. 



  On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Yes my friend, I understand this.  But is the control system regulating the 
reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the nanoantennas?   Quite 
obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would bring this up.



Jojo



- Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue. It 
is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's temperature.


  A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.


  Do you understand this?



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even 
if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you still 
have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism can not be 
correct for this simple reason.

Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like 
Darwinian Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory 
is, how Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how 
novel Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists 
can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise from 
non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.  The 
validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the plausibility of 
this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution is a sham.

My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It 
does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain the 
root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel 
spherical nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel 
nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure 
such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  
If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if 
it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It 
will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it 
gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result 
of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle 
is still small enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes 
too big, then it stops being the NAE.


  The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano 
antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna . The 
beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The nano 
antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is usually 
unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance, That is why a 
reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano antenna 
destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element through 
transmutation 



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires, 
nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.  
They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are at 
best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be restarted 
after its first run.

Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, 
and then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic 
premise of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel 
nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and 
modify your theory according to my suggestion below.

If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel 
spherical nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel 
nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure 
such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a sphe

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

Fine, I will dig up my equipment from storage and send you pictures.

But what's in it for me?  What do I get for my effort and wasted time?  Are you 
willing to back up your challenge to me?

How about making this interesting.  If I can show proof that I spent money, 
time and effort replicating this Flat Plate Heat Exchanger contraption, will 
you shut up forever and leave vortex?  If I can't, I will leave vortex forever. 
  

Deal?

And Let's make this definite by laying down some rules of the bet.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Scan your lab notes and show it to us. Some data would be nice too. 




  2014-08-17 0:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

  This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (jojoiznar...@gmail.com) 
Add cleanup rule | More info 






I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;  
but I still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to try 
to replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?






  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

Actually my friend, if the hotcat is operating the way I speculate, Rossi does 
not have to worry about the sintering.  Since, the NAE would be floating blobs 
of nickel nanoparticles which may be partially melted.  He needs to use "bumpy" 
"sea-urchin" microparticles precisely for the reason I speculate.  The tips 
break off as nanoparticles and serve as the NAE.

The problem is with your theory.  You are speculating a mechanism of 
nanoantennas which I am trying to point to you is not correct.  Because your 
nanoantenna will sinter and be destroyed.  Do not attempt to confuse the issue 
by conflating your theory with what is known about the hotcat from the Levi 
TIP1 report.  Quite obviously, your theory is NOT how the hotcat operates so 
suggesting that the hotcat is "proof" of your theory and asking me to accept 
that your theory is how the hotcat operates is way beyond arrogant, my friend.  
How can you even begin to suggest a theory and then use the HotCat as proof of 
your theory?  That absolutely boggles the mind that you would suggest that.

And why would you say the nickel does not sinter?  Are you still clinging to 
your "metaphasic shielding" explanation that the BEC is shielding the 
nanostructures from high temps?



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  This nickel preservation question is part of the design of the Ni/H reactor 
as Rossi has let slip. Rossi says that his reactor is now running at 1000C He 
said in the past that he used bumpy microparticles.


  Ask Rossi why his nickel does not sinter. By the way, it does not sinter,



  On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

That part I understand my friend, what I don't understand is how you can 
even begin to claim that.  Is the mouse operating at under 300C?  Because that 
is the beginning sintering point of nickel nanoparticles.  (In fact, there is 
reason to believe sintering occurs at temps lower than this.)

But, I do not believe the mouse is operating at 300C or less; nor is the 
cat.  Both appear to be thermally coupled and hence would be operating at at 
least 700C based on the Levi TIP1 report.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  I have posted more than once, that if the control system of the reactor 
keeps the reactor temperature under the sintering temperature of the nickel 
nanostuctures, the nickel particles will be safe.


  Is that hard to understand? 



  On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

My friend, this is your proof  I've studied these docs before.

These are all speculations.  No proof here.

But In fact, I've done more than you to try replicate some of these 
ideas.  I've actually built a contraption for replicating some of it.  Much 
more than I can say for you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.

And BTW, my friend, I never pretended to be comparable to Tesla.  In 
fact, I am openly admitting that I am not smart enough, educated enough to 
understand what you are speculating, except that I see a big problem with your 
theory that you seem to be unwilling to address.  Please address my sintering, 
melting root problem and we can move on to the other more esoteric parts of 
your theory.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon 
nanoparticles causing LENR, etc. etc. 


  See


  Fusion by Pseudo-Particles



  Part 1  



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf



  Part 2



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf



  Part 3



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf




  See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

See a picture of piantelli's nano antennas. I wonder if this conforms with
your idea of a nano antenna.


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *Quite obviously it is not,*
>
> How can you say this?*  I know, you just wiggle your lips. *
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Yes my friend, I understand this.  But is the control system regulating
>> the reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the
>> nanoantennas?   Quite obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would
>> bring this up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>  Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue.
>> It is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's
>> temperature.
>>
>> A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.
>>
>> Do you understand this?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.
>>> Even if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna,
>>> you still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This
>>> mechanism can not be correct for this simple reason.
>>>
>>> Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like
>>> Darwinian Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian
>>> Theory is, how Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of
>>> species; how novel Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter
>>> unless Darwinists can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can
>>> spontaneously arise from non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this
>>> root problem first.  The validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory
>>> rest on the plausibility of this root problem.  That is why to me,
>>>  Darwinian evolution is a sham.
>>>
>>> My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It
>>> does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain
>>> the root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>>
>>>  *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel
>>> spherical nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>>>
>>> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
>>> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
>>> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
>>> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
>>> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
>>> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
>>> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
>>> through transmutation
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
 nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
 They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
 at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
 restarted after its first run.

 Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and
 then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

 This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
 of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
 nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
 modify your theory according to my suggestion below.

 If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
 nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
 nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.

Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Axil Axil]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

see slide 30


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read
>> somewhere, but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down.
>>
>
> Apparently I didn't look too far.  There are several references to his
> using a cloud chamber.  Here is a brief description from Steven Krivit
> (search for "cloud chamber") [1].  If someone knows of a more complete
> description, I'd be grateful for a reference; I recall a story outlining
> someone's visit to Piantelli that I read several years ago.  For the
> curious, here is a video of a cloud chamber at work, where you can see
> alpha and beta decays from normal background radiation, as well as alpha
> decays from Americium and then Radon [2].
>
> Eric
>
> [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

*Quite obviously it is not,*

How can you say this?*  I know, you just wiggle your lips. *


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  Yes my friend, I understand this.  But is the control system regulating
> the reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the
> nanoantennas?   Quite obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would
> bring this up.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>  Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue.
> It is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's
> temperature.
>
> A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.
>
> Do you understand this?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even
>> if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you
>> still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism
>> can not be correct for this simple reason.
>>
>> Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like
>> Darwinian Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian
>> Theory is, how Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of
>> species; how novel Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter
>> unless Darwinists can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can
>> spontaneously arise from non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this
>> root problem first.  The validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory
>> rest on the plausibility of this root problem.  That is why to me,
>>  Darwinian evolution is a sham.
>>
>> My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It
>> does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain
>> the root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>  *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel
>> spherical nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>>
>> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
>> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
>> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
>> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
>> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
>> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
>> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
>> through transmutation
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
>>> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
>>> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
>>> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
>>> restarted after its first run.
>>>
>>> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and
>>> then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>>>
>>> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
>>> of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
>>> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
>>> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>>>
>>> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>>> i

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Daniel Rocha]

Scan your lab notes and show it to us. Some data would be nice too.


2014-08-17 0:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (jojoiznar...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
>
>
> I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;
> but I still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to
> try to replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?
>
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Axil Axil]

This nickel preservation question is part of the design of the Ni/H reactor
as Rossi has let slip. Rossi says that his reactor is now running at 1000C
He said in the past that he used bumpy microparticles.

Ask Rossi why his nickel does not sinter. By the way, it does not sinter,


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  That part I understand my friend, what I don't understand is how you can
> even begin to claim that.  Is the mouse operating at under 300C?  Because
> that is the beginning sintering point of nickel nanoparticles.  (In fact,
> there is reason to believe sintering occurs at temps lower than this.)
>
> But, I do not believe the mouse is operating at 300C or less; nor is the
> cat.  Both appear to be thermally coupled and hence would be operating at
> at least 700C based on the Levi TIP1 report.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
>  I have posted more than once, that if the control system of the reactor
> keeps the reactor temperature under the sintering temperature of the nickel
> nanostuctures, the nickel particles will be safe.
>
> Is that hard to understand?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  My friend, this is your proof  I've studied these docs before.
>>
>> These are all speculations.  No proof here.
>>
>> But In fact, I've done more than you to try replicate some of these
>> ideas.  I've actually built a contraption for replicating some of it.  Much
>> more than I can say for you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.
>>
>> And BTW, my friend, I never pretended to be comparable to Tesla.  In
>> fact, I am openly admitting that I am not smart enough, educated enough to
>> understand what you are speculating, except that I see a big problem with
>> your theory that you seem to be unwilling to address.  Please address my
>> sintering, melting root problem and we can move on to the other more
>> esoteric parts of your theory.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:53 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>>
>>  Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon nanoparticles
>> causing LENR, etc. etc.
>>
>> See
>>
>>  Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
>>
>>
>>
>> Part 1
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Part 2
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Part 3
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf
>>
>> See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

Yes my friend, I understand this.  But is the control system regulating the 
reactor to operate below the sintering temperature of the nanoantennas?   Quite 
obviously it is not, so I am befuddled why you would bring this up.



Jojo



- Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue. It is 
the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's temperature.


  A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.


  Do you understand this?



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even if 
you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you still have 
very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism can not be 
correct for this simple reason.

Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian 
Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory is, how 
Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how novel 
Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists can 
explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise from 
non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.  The 
validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the plausibility of 
this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution is a sham.

My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It 
does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain the 
root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical 
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel nanoparticle is 
not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure such as a nanowire, 
a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  If the NAE is just a 
simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if it is sintered or 
partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an 
effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it gets stuck and 
melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result of which would 
be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle is still small 
enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it 
stops being the NAE.


  The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano antenna 
projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna . The beam 
usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The nano antenna 
does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is usually unaffected by 
the remote reaction. This is action at a distance, That is why a reactor can 
stay unaffected for months or years without Nano antenna destruction. Nickel is 
usually NOT changed to another element through transmutation 



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:

But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires, 
nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.  
They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are at 
best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be restarted 
after its first run.

Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and 
then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise 
of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel 
nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and 
modify your theory according to my suggestion below.

If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical 
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel nanoparticle is 
not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure such as a nanowire, 
a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  If the NAE is just a 
simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if it is sintered or 
partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an 
effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it gets stuck and 
melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result of which would 
be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle is still small 
enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it 
stops being the N

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

That part I understand my friend, what I don't understand is how you can even 
begin to claim that.  Is the mouse operating at under 300C?  Because that is 
the beginning sintering point of nickel nanoparticles.  (In fact, there is 
reason to believe sintering occurs at temps lower than this.)

But, I do not believe the mouse is operating at 300C or less; nor is the cat.  
Both appear to be thermally coupled and hence would be operating at at least 
700C based on the Levi TIP1 report.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  I have posted more than once, that if the control system of the reactor keeps 
the reactor temperature under the sintering temperature of the nickel 
nanostuctures, the nickel particles will be safe.


  Is that hard to understand? 



  On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

My friend, this is your proof  I've studied these docs before.

These are all speculations.  No proof here.

But In fact, I've done more than you to try replicate some of these ideas.  
I've actually built a contraption for replicating some of it.  Much more than I 
can say for you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.

And BTW, my friend, I never pretended to be comparable to Tesla.  In fact, 
I am openly admitting that I am not smart enough, educated enough to understand 
what you are speculating, except that I see a big problem with your theory that 
you seem to be unwilling to address.  Please address my sintering, melting root 
problem and we can move on to the other more esoteric parts of your theory.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon nanoparticles 
causing LENR, etc. etc. 


  See


  Fusion by Pseudo-Particles



  Part 1  



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf



  Part 2



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf



  Part 3



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf




  See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

Keeping the reactor temperature under control is an engineering issue. It
is the job of the reactors control system to regulate the reactor's
temperature.

A failure of that control system will cause the reactor to meltdown.

Do you understand this?


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even
> if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you
> still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism
> can not be correct for this simple reason.
>
> Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian
> Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory is, how
> Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how novel
> Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists
> can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise
> from non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.
> The validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the
> plausibility of this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution
> is a sham.
>
> My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It
> does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain
> the root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>  *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>
> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
> through transmutation
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
>> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
>> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
>> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
>> restarted after its first run.
>>
>> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then
>> be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>>
>> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
>> of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
>> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
>> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>>
>> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.
>>
>> This speculation of mine explains a few problems.
>>
>> 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
>> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
>> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
>> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
>> monopole

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Kevin O'Malley]

So you're pissed that Axil was an advocate of some theory that you tried to
replicate and failed to do so.  How is that Axil's fault?  Lots of
experiments have had replication failures, is it the fault of the person
who suggests it's worth replicating?


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  What kind of proof do you require?
>
> I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;
> but I still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to
> try to replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?
>
> If I can prove this, will you shut up? and give my challenge to Axil some
> support?  You've challenged me and I will prove it, will you do the same?
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:35 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
> Prove that your resources were spent instead of just annoying everyone by
> complaining about his anonymity. Your test is "anonymous".
>
>
> 2014-08-17 0:31 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>>   Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause
>> people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort.
>>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Axil Axil]

I have posted more than once, that if the control system of the reactor
keeps the reactor temperature under the sintering temperature of the nickel
nanostuctures, the nickel particles will be safe.

Is that hard to understand?


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  My friend, this is your proof  I've studied these docs before.
>
> These are all speculations.  No proof here.
>
> But In fact, I've done more than you to try replicate some of these
> ideas.  I've actually built a contraption for replicating some of it.  Much
> more than I can say for you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.
>
> And BTW, my friend, I never pretended to be comparable to Tesla.  In fact,
> I am openly admitting that I am not smart enough, educated enough to
> understand what you are speculating, except that I see a big problem with
> your theory that you seem to be unwilling to address.  Please address my
> sintering, melting root problem and we can move on to the other more
> esoteric parts of your theory.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
>  Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon nanoparticles
> causing LENR, etc. etc.
>
> See
>
>  Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
>
>
>
> Part 1
>
>
>
> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf
>
>
>
> Part 2
>
>
>
> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf
>
>
>
> Part 3
>
>
>
> http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf
>
> See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Kevin O'Malley]

Why not send it to Axil, since you have such a huge Axil to grind.  Maybe
he can make hay out of the experiment where you could not.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  What kind of proof do you require?
>
> I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;
> but I still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to
> try to replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?
>
> If I can prove this, will you shut up? and give my challenge to Axil some
> support?  You've challenged me and I will prove it, will you do the same?
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:35 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
> Prove that your resources were spent instead of just annoying everyone by
> complaining about his anonymity. Your test is "anonymous".
>
>
> 2014-08-17 0:31 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>>   Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause
>> people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort.
>>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian
Evolution Theory.
***That is precisely what you did, bring up religion again.  At least
you're on a different thread this time.


It does not matter unless Darwinists can explain the Abiogenesis problem on
how life can spontaneously arise from non-life chemicals.
***Nonsense.  Darwinian theory is independent of how life got here in the
first place.  Your problem is (rightly) with Agiogenesis theory, not
Darwinism.  But it has little to do with the current discussion, your point
is completely invalidated, so it makes it difficult to move on in this
discussion.


How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.
***The same way that any other antenna is protected from high
temperatures.  Houses burn down but the TV antenna keeps outputting valid
TV signal until far later.Because for all that heat to get to one
single wire means it has to be even hotter than normal fires.  And in the
case of LENR it would mean that the heat needs to directly interject these
antennas, which probably doesn't happen until the heat gets far past the
melting point of the antennas themselves (just like a real housefire).



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even
> if you say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you
> still have very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism
> can not be correct for this simple reason.
>
> Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian
> Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory is, how
> Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how novel
> Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists
> can explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise
> from non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.
> The validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the
> plausibility of this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution
> is a sham.
>
> My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It
> does not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain
> the root problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>  *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>
> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
> through transmutation
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
>> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
>> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
>> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
>> restarted after its first run.
>>
>> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then
>> be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>>
>> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
>> of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
>> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
>> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>>
>> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>> such as a nanowire, a nano

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

My friend, this is your proof  I've studied these docs before.

These are all speculations.  No proof here.

But In fact, I've done more than you to try replicate some of these ideas.  
I've actually built a contraption for replicating some of it.  Much more than I 
can say for you.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.

And BTW, my friend, I never pretended to be comparable to Tesla.  In fact, I am 
openly admitting that I am not smart enough, educated enough to understand what 
you are speculating, except that I see a big problem with your theory that you 
seem to be unwilling to address.  Please address my sintering, melting root 
problem and we can move on to the other more esoteric parts of your theory.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon nanoparticles 
causing LENR, etc. etc. 


  See


  Fusion by Pseudo-Particles



  Part 1  



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf



  Part 2



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf



  Part 3



  http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf




  See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Axil Axil]

Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon nanoparticles
causing LENR, etc. etc.

See

Fusion by Pseudo-Particles



Part 1



http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf



Part 2



http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf



Part 3



http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part3.pdf

See tesla's carbon button lamp in part 1. I think you are no tesla.

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

What kind of proof do you require?

I have since dismantled my lab since I am now busy with my wave project;  but I 
still have the Flat Plat Heat Exchanger contraption that I built to try to 
replicate the experiment.  Do you want me to send it to you?

If I can prove this, will you shut up? and give my challenge to Axil some 
support?  You've challenged me and I will prove it, will you do the same?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Prove that your resources were spent instead of just annoying everyone by 
complaining about his anonymity. Your test is "anonymous". 




  2014-08-17 0:31 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

 Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause 
people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort. 

  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Axil being anonymous is to me a major problem and a good reason why
> people should treat his theories with skepticism.
>
***Skepticism is good.  Where are your theories we can treat with such
skepticism.  How do we establish YOUR bona fides?



>
> Why? simply because Axil does not loose anything if his outrageous
> theories are exposed.
>
***He "looses" status here on Vortex.  Just like you would if you proposed
a theory or two that were quickly invalidated.



> Normally, a person proposing a theory would have his reputation invested
> with the success of his theory.  A person that is known would be careful in
> proposing theories he knows will not stand the test of science lest his
> credibility be smeared.
>
***Keep in mind that you're asking quite a few Vorts to step out of
anonymity.  And even then, how do we know they are who they say they are?



>
> This is not the case with Axil.  And to me, that is a problem.
>
***Why don't you just evaluate his theories on their own friggin merits?




> Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause
> people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort.
>
***We've seen that.  Even recently.  There's a recent poster who simply
gets ignored as far as I can tell.




> All this wasted effort does not affect Axil personally, hence he is not at
> all motivated to be circumspect in his speculations.  That is a danger.
>
***Methinks the lady doth protest too much.




> A famous LENR researcher once opined to me in a private email how he too
> would like to know who Axil really is.
>
***Private email, huh?  Sounds suspiciously like the kind of anonymity you
are railing against right here and now.




> He was expressing the same concern as I am now; especially in the face of
> growing popularity of Axil's speculations.
>
***And if Axil is a buffoon he will crash & burn.  Where is the harm?




> We could all be being lead down a useless rabbit hole.
>
***Why are you so concerned?  It is no different than other rabbit holes in
the past.  And perhaps your "famous LENR -private email- LENR researcher"
is just Edmund Storms who decided he didn't want to be a part of Vortex-L
any more and defend HIS theory.  Who gives a flying fart if Axil is just a
janitor?  He's demonstrated levels of understanding above yours and mine to
the point that we cannot even criticize it.  Perhaps the same is true of
your "private email famous LENR dude".



>
> Remember Axil's eloquent theoritical explanation of the "propane Flat
> plate Heat Exchanger" device by a chinese fellow here in vortex.
>
***Nope.  Doesn't even ring a bell.




> The chinese fellow claimed overunity and Axil followed suit with elaborate
> explanations of carbon nanoparticles causing LENR, etc. etc.  Well, my
> friends, I tried to replicate that setup to no avail.
>
***Well, that's impressive.  But as we ALL know, failure to replicate does
not mean that it CANNOT be replicated.  Otherwise none of us would be here
discussing P-F results which were so famously "not" replicated.



>   The excess heat was plain old propane combustion.  Sadly, I followed
> Axil and was led down a rabbit hole.
>
***Bummer for you.  Maybe your problem shouldn't be our problem.




> I don't blame him, because such is the nature of experimentalism.  But, it
> seems to me that people should from henceforth be more circumspect in
> giving too much credence to the ideas of an anonymous poster.
>
***And maybe we should be more circumspect in listening to you as well.
You are cutting the line so far out that it excludes perhaps 40 to 50% of
Vorts.  It is a useless venture.




>   Most of us, do not have the training or the knowledge to properly vet
> Axil's theories before we embark down that path; so it is critical that the
> person shares in the glory as well as in the failure of his ideas.  Being
> anonymous does not allow that.
>
***Interesting.  But such a proposal belongs on an elitist group of
researchers such as whichever one that Ed Storms eventually migrated to.  I
suspect it wouldn't take me more than 20 minutes to figure out who Axil is,
so he/she ain't all that anonymous.



>
> I hope people can see why it is important for people to stake their
> reputation together with their theory, like Ed has done.
>
***And then Ed promptly left this forum.  Perhaps your meandering musings
are better suited for whatever forum Ed migrated to.




> And for that, I admire him greatly irregardless of whether his theory pans
> out or not.
>
***I don't care whose theory pans out, as long as one does.  Hero worship
is unflattering.  You might want to wait until his theory is validated
before you continue to go down this path.






>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>  - Original Message -
> *From:* Ron Kita 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 4:44 AM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
>
> Greetings Vortex,
>
> Not sure ho

Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere,
> but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down.
>

Apparently I didn't look too far.  There are several references to his
using a cloud chamber.  Here is a brief description from Steven Krivit
(search for "cloud chamber") [1].  If someone knows of a more complete
description, I'd be grateful for a reference; I recall a story outlining
someone's visit to Piantelli that I read several years ago.  For the
curious, here is a video of a cloud chamber at work, where you can see
alpha and beta decays from normal background radiation, as well as alpha
decays from Americium and then Radon [2].

Eric

[1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

But my friend, how does the nickel nanoantenna survive the temps.  Even if you 
say the actual LENR reaction is remote from the nanoantenna, you still have 
very high temps at the nanoantenna site itself.  This mechanism can not be 
correct for this simple reason.

Not to bring a religious topic in again, but your theory is like Darwinian 
Evolution Theory.  It does not matter how elegant Darwinian Theory is, how 
Natural selection mechanisms could explain the origin of species; how novel 
Punctuated Evolution is, etc., etc.  It does not matter unless Darwinists can 
explain the Abiogenesis problem on how life can spontaneously arise from 
non-life chemicals.  They have to explain this root problem first.  The 
validity of the entire Darwinian Evolution theory rest on the plausibility of 
this root problem.  That is why to me,  Darwinian evolution is a sham.

My friend, I think you have the same problem here with your theory.  It does 
not matter how elegant the rest of your theory is until you explain the root 
problem.  How are the NAE nanostructures protected from high temps.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 11:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical 
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel nanoparticle is 
not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure such as a nanowire, 
a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  If the NAE is just a 
simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if it is sintered or 
partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an 
effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it gets stuck and 
melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result of which would 
be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle is still small 
enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it 
stops being the NAE.


  The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano antenna 
projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna . The beam 
usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The nano antenna 
does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is usually unaffected by 
the remote reaction. This is action at a distance, That is why a reactor can 
stay unaffected for months or years without Nano antenna destruction. Nickel is 
usually NOT changed to another element through transmutation 



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires, 
nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.  
They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are at 
best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be restarted 
after its first run.

Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then 
be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise of 
your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel 
nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and 
modify your theory according to my suggestion below.

If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical 
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel nanoparticle is 
not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure such as a nanowire, 
a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  If the NAE is just a 
simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if it is sintered or 
partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an 
effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it gets stuck and 
melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result of which would 
be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle is still small 
enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it 
stops being the NAE.

This speculation of mine explains a few problems.

1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The 
reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have 
agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The nickel 
has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton, monopole, 
charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we have 
quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE has 
formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?

2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has to 
be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes are the 
NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the m

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

the second column is before the run, the first is after run. I looks like
nickel has increased.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If you take a look at this table from ICCF-17 data from DGT, you will see
> no nickel transmutation.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element through transmutation
>> ***But the Nickel at the end of the nano antenna, within the sniper scope
>> of the target, that would be subject to transmutation, right?  That would
>> explain why there is so little transmutation with such a high energy
>> reaction.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>>>
>>> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
>>> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
>>> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
>>> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
>>> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
>>> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
>>> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
>>> through transmutation
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
 nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
 They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
 at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
 restarted after its first run.

 Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and
 then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

 This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
 of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
 nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
 modify your theory according to my suggestion below.

 If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
 nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
 nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
 such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
 blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
 not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
 in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
 it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
 nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
 particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
 act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.

 This speculation of mine explains a few problems.

 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
 reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
 agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
 nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
 monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
 have quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE
 has formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?

 2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has
 to be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes
 are the NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother
 microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve
 as NAE.  It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still
 capable of serving as NAE.

 3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
 Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles t

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

If you take a look at this table from ICCF-17 data from DGT, you will see
no nickel transmutation.





On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
wrote:

> Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element through transmutation
> ***But the Nickel at the end of the nano antenna, within the sniper scope
> of the target, that would be subject to transmutation, right?  That would
> explain why there is so little transmutation with such a high energy
> reaction.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>>
>> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
>> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
>> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
>> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
>> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
>> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
>> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
>> through transmutation
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
>>> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
>>> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
>>> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
>>> restarted after its first run.
>>>
>>> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and
>>> then be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>>>
>>> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
>>> of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
>>> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
>>> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>>>
>>> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.
>>>
>>> This speculation of mine explains a few problems.
>>>
>>> 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
>>> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
>>> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
>>> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
>>> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
>>> have quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE
>>> has formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?
>>>
>>> 2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has
>>> to be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes
>>> are the NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother
>>> microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve
>>> as NAE.  It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still
>>> capable of serving as NAE.
>>>
>>> 3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
>>> Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to
>>> serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops
>>> becoming active NAE sites.
>>>
>>> 4.  This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the
>>> "mouse and cat".  The mouse produces the nickel nanopa

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Daniel Rocha]

Prove that your resources were spent instead of just annoying everyone by
complaining about his anonymity. Your test is "anonymous".


2014-08-17 0:31 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

>   Axil could be proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause
> people to go down the wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort.
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Jojo Iznart]

Axil being anonymous is to me a major problem and a good reason why people 
should treat his theories with skepticism.

Why? simply because Axil does not loose anything if his outrageous theories are 
exposed.  Normally, a person proposing a theory would have his reputation 
invested with the success of his theory.  A person that is known would be 
careful in proposing theories he knows will not stand the test of science lest 
his credibility be smeared.  

This is not the case with Axil.  And to me, that is a problem.  Axil could be 
proposing useless "rabbit hole" ideas which would cause people to go down the 
wrong trail and waste time and resources and effort.  All this wasted effort 
does not affect Axil personally, hence he is not at all motivated to be 
circumspect in his speculations.  That is a danger.  A famous LENR researcher 
once opined to me in a private email how he too would like to know who Axil 
really is.  He was expressing the same concern as I am now; especially in the 
face of growing popularity of Axil's speculations.  We could all be being lead 
down a useless rabbit hole.

Remember Axil's eloquent theoritical explanation of the "propane Flat plate 
Heat Exchanger" device by a chinese fellow here in vortex.  The chinese fellow 
claimed overunity and Axil followed suit with elaborate explanations of carbon 
nanoparticles causing LENR, etc. etc.  Well, my friends, I tried to replicate 
that setup to no avail.  The excess heat was plain old propane combustion.  
Sadly, I followed Axil and was led down a rabbit hole.  I don't blame him, 
because such is the nature of experimentalism.  But, it seems to me that people 
should from henceforth be more circumspect in giving too much credence to the 
ideas of an anonymous poster.  Most of us, do not have the training or the 
knowledge to properly vet Axil's theories before we embark down that path; so 
it is critical that the person shares in the glory as well as in the failure of 
his ideas.  Being anonymous does not allow that.

I hope people can see why it is important for people to stake their reputation 
together with their theory, like Ed has done.  And for that, I admire him 
greatly irregardless of whether his theory pans out or not.



Jojo


   - Original Message - 
  From: Ron Kita 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 4:44 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma


  Greetings Vortex,


  Not sure how many Vortex folks googled: Axil s email:JANAP128...hmm.


  Axil is an enigma.  Kudos to him.


  I am a Villanova economist...not spoiled by Einstein dogma...and Scientific 
Theory.
  Grins,
  Ron Kita,Chiralex
  Doylestown PA.a close friend of the late Gene Mallove.
  My other friend, Boyd Bushman, ex- Lockheed: Follow the data- theory be 
damned.

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to
serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops
becoming active NAE sites.

the Ni/H reactor must be heated above the curie temperature of nickel to
remove the magnetic properties of nickel from the nickel. Nickel is used
because it reflects infrared light vey well.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
> restarted after its first run.
>
> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then
> be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>
> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise of
> your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>
> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.
>
> This speculation of mine explains a few problems.
>
> 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
> have quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE
> has formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?
>
> 2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has to
> be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes are
> the NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother
> microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve
> as NAE.  It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still
> capable of serving as NAE.
>
> 3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
> Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to
> serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops
> becoming active NAE sites.
>
> 4.  This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the
> "mouse and cat".  The mouse produces the nickel nanoparticles for the cat.
> This would also explain why the mouse itself is overunity also.
> Fundamentally the reaction in both the mouse and the cat is the same.  The
> mouse is simply engineered to have lots of sea-urchin microparticles.  As
> these microparticles are heated, the tips break off into nanoparticles that
> serve as dynamically created NAE to the cat.  When all the tips are broken
> off, no further "dynamic" NAE are created, hence, we have quiescence.  The
> mouse needs to be "recharged" with a new batch of nickel sea-urchin
> microparticles.
>
> 5.  This would explain why we have runaway. A balance has to be achieved
> between the rate of nanoparticle production and temperature.  Too hot and
> too much nanoparticles would break off resulting in runaway.  This also
> explains why Rossi had to seperate the mouse from the Cat.  If he puts the
> sea-urchin microparticles in the cat, he would not be able to control how
> much nanoparticles are broken off because he can not finely control the
> temp of the cat.  So, he puts the sea-urchin microparticle in the mouse
> where he can control the temperature via external power.  This allows him
> fine tuned control of the whole hotcat.  Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
> have runaway.
>
>
>
> How the nickel nanoparticle blobs serve as NAE - I do not know.  I am not
> smart enough to answer that.  Maybe others can explain how a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle serves as the NAE.
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   IAre you claiming your NAE is

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element through transmutation
***But the Nickel at the end of the nano antenna, within the sniper scope
of the target, that would be subject to transmutation, right?  That would
explain why there is so little transmutation with such a high energy
reaction.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*
>
> The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
> antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
> . The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
> nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
> usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
> That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
> antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
> through transmutation
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
>> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
>> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
>> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
>> restarted after its first run.
>>
>> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then
>> be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>>
>> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise
>> of your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
>> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
>> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>>
>> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
>> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
>> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
>> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
>> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
>> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
>> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
>> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
>> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
>> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
>> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.
>>
>> This speculation of mine explains a few problems.
>>
>> 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
>> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
>> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
>> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
>> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
>> have quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE
>> has formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?
>>
>> 2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has
>> to be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes
>> are the NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother
>> microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve
>> as NAE.  It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still
>> capable of serving as NAE.
>>
>> 3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
>> Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to
>> serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops
>> becoming active NAE sites.
>>
>> 4.  This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the
>> "mouse and cat".  The mouse produces the nickel nanoparticles for the cat.
>> This would also explain why the mouse itself is overunity also.
>> Fundamentally the reaction in both the mouse and the cat is the same.  The
>> mouse is simply engineered to have lots of sea-urchin microparticles.  As
>> these 

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

*If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.*

The NAE, is distant and remote from the nano antenna. The nano
antenna projects a magnetic beam on some atoms far from the nano antenna
. The beam usually falls on  hydrogen atoms far from the nano antenna. The
nano antenna does not feel the energy of the reaction. The nickel is
usually unaffected by the remote reaction. This is action at a distance,
That is why a reactor can stay unaffected for months or years without Nano
antenna destruction. Nickel is usually NOT changed to another element
through transmutation


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires,
> nanoantennas, nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.
> They are gone at 400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are
> at best one-time use NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be
> restarted after its first run.
>
> Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then
> be restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.
>
> This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise of
> your speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel
> nanostructures to be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and
> modify your theory according to my suggestion below.
>
> If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical
> nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel
> nanoparticle is not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure
> such as a nanowire, a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical
> blob.)  If the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will
> not matter if it is sintered or partially melted (which would be the case
> in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an effective NAE until it evaporates, or
> it sublimates, or it gets stuck and melted and merged into another nickel
> nanoparticle, the result of which would be a bigger partially melted nickel
> particle.  If this particle is still small enough, it may still continue to
> act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it stops being the NAE.
>
> This speculation of mine explains a few problems.
>
> 1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The
> reason is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have
> agglomerated into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The
> nickel has to be removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton,
> monopole, charge pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we
> have quiescence.  Why would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE
> has formed?  The reactor should go on forever, right?
>
> 2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has to
> be processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes are
> the NAE.  When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother
> microparticle and starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve
> as NAE.  It would not matter if they are partially melted, they are still
> capable of serving as NAE.
>
> 3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.
> Rossi needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to
> serve as new NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops
> becoming active NAE sites.
>
> 4.  This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the
> "mouse and cat".  The mouse produces the nickel nanoparticles for the cat.
> This would also explain why the mouse itself is overunity also.
> Fundamentally the reaction in both the mouse and the cat is the same.  The
> mouse is simply engineered to have lots of sea-urchin microparticles.  As
> these microparticles are heated, the tips break off into nanoparticles that
> serve as dynamically created NAE to the cat.  When all the tips are broken
> off, no further "dynamic" NAE are created, hence, we have quiescence.  The
> mouse needs to be "recharged" with a new batch of nickel sea-urchin
> microparticles.
>
> 5.  This would explain why we have runaway. A balance has to be achieved
> between the rate of nanoparticle production and temperature. 

Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter

[Kevin O'Malley]

Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and very
difficult to understand.
***Gee, wouldn't that qualify as one of those insults that you so
grievingly take fault from me?  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.


On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Sorry my friend, I find your writing style tedious and long-winded and
> very difficult to understand.  After reading, then rereading and then
> rereading it again, I still have difficulty trying to understand your
> point.  Please write in short, to the point sentences.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *To:* VORTEX 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The 5 states of matter
>
> Jojo, take in consideration that I want a friendly discussion with you not
> a nervous and aggressive "you are wrong,I am right" one. You have right to
> your opinions and I also can think what I can based on my knowledge,
> prejudices and experience.I want to avoid scandal, it is counterproductive.
> We need new GOOD ideas.
> Please appreciate my sincerity in the following.
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> *People with no training or qualifications in this area have the audacity
> to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time researcher in the
> field.  Understanding this field requires a deep knowledge in many
> scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed have.  Ed is uniquely
> qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet his theories are
> rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the greatest, theories
> proposing structures and substances we clearly know can not exist.*
> to this:
> a) it is difficult to decide who has training or qualifications to
> contribute to LENR- physicists only, chemists in what extent; or if I think
> that LENR will be solved by combining the scientific method with the
> technologicl method and engineering is the key- then technology illiterates
> are disqualified. Lennart here- like me thinks that solid knowledge in
> management including leadership will also be necessary- then the are of
> knowledge is even greater
>
> b) about Ed Storms- I know him, I consider him a friend, I know he has
> encyclopedic knowledge in LENR, is a guru He also had performed first class
> experimental work. I have sent his former book to The Europen Commission
> and who knows it can be as a seed there, sometime.
> However remember Robert Frost's idea about "knowledge lost in information
> and wisdom lost in knowledge"? To write a wonderful book is one thing to
> make a synthesis of many data, info, etc some contradictory, some false,
> some redundant, much still missing is an other kind of task.
>
> C) if you read my most recent paper, you will see that i strongly disliked
> Ed's theory from its embryonic stage- and this has probably helped him to
> improve it. I am rejecting it for its own characteristics not because I
> favored nanoplasmonics or other "exotic" idea. Just to mention that
> hydroton is a structure whose existent has to be demonstrated and if
> deuterium  is building it, protium will probably not.
> A theory has to be evaluated based on its predictive capacity and problem
> solving power- please rethink Ed's theory; it is possible you see what I
> cannot.
>
> NOW re Ni nanostructures I think the good ones are destroyed but also
> generated in the proper conditions- dynamic active sites.
>
> Re cancer treatments- if you get some forms of it is not so relevant who
> tries to make your life a bit longer. My son had ganglionar cancer, 3
> surgeries then a tumor has sectioned his carotide  and he died, smiling to
> me..
>
> Conclusion (not to cancer) the existing ideas do NOT help to understand
> LENR and to convert it in an energy source- we need other ones.
>
> By thw way, in the negation stage Ed shows that all he existing CF/LENR
> theories are not realistic, based on imagination and of no use for the
> experimental work
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Peter, My objections are not so much rooted in the "new" ideas
>> themselves, but in ideas that have no basis in reality pretending to be
>> heirs to the throne.  These ideas are a distraction.  We need to get rid of
>> these "fluffs".  People with no training or qualifications in this area
>> have the audacity to start arguing with Ed Storms, a proven, long-time
>> researcher in the field.  Understanding this field requires a deep
>> knowledge in many scientific disciplines only a few people like Ed
>> have.  Ed is uniquely qualified to even begin discussing this field, yet
>> his theories are rejected in favor of the latest, but definitely not the
>> greatest, theories proposing structures and substances we clearly know can
>> not exist.
>>
>> My challenge is open to anyone who can satisfactorily answer my initial
>> contention.  How can the nickel nanostructures, such as nanowires, nano
>> antennas, etc continue to exist to c

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Oh, and, when you do that... make sure you don't just jump in out of
context.  Read the whole thread.  I know that is hard for you, but you have
"made your bed so it's time to sleep in it. "  I doubt you will do the
honorable thing.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Have I insulted Peter Gluck on this thread?  Nope.  So what's yer
> problem?  Log onto the threads where I have insulted these people and see
> for yourself their own attitudes.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing
>> with your "chip on your shoulder" childish attitude.  The record shows that
>> you have insulted and have been childish to many people here before I
>> showed up.  Here are just a sample of people you picked fights with.
>>
>> 1.   Peter Gluck
>> 2.  Lennart Thornros
>> 3.  Mark at Zeropoint
>> 4.  Blaze Spinnaker
>> 5.  Dave Roberson
>> 6.  Me.
>>
>>
>> Should I go on?
>>
>> You can hve the last insult my friend,  Have at it.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff
>>> anymore.  If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your
>>> problem.
>>>
>> ***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious
>> stuff".  And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've
>> continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.
>>
>> Jojo Iznart 
>> Aug 15 (1 day ago)
>>
>>
>>to vortex-l
>>
>> JOJO:
>> This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and
>> bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out
>> a few things.
>>   
>> 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away
>> claiming that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation
>> over Axil's best everytime.
>>
>> ***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the
>> audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve
>> to be keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would
>> characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him
>> from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow
>> Up".  Why should anyone listen to you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.
>>> GROW UP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>>
>>>  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the
>>> one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
>>> subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
>>> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 The Biblical stuff has other venues.


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
 wrote:

> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the 
> learned
> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>>
>> Google hits for
>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>
>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>
>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their 
>> answer
>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, specifically t

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Have I insulted Peter Gluck on this thread?  Nope.  So what's yer problem?
Log onto the threads where I have insulted these people and see for
yourself their own attitudes.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>
> Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing with
> your "chip on your shoulder" childish attitude.  The record shows that you
> have insulted and have been childish to many people here before I showed
> up.  Here are just a sample of people you picked fights with.
>
> 1.   Peter Gluck
> 2.  Lennart Thornros
> 3.  Mark at Zeropoint
> 4.  Blaze Spinnaker
> 5.  Dave Roberson
> 6.  Me.
>
>
> Should I go on?
>
> You can hve the last insult my friend,  Have at it.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.
>> If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem.
>>
> ***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious
> stuff".  And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've
> continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.
>
> Jojo Iznart 
> Aug 15 (1 day ago)
>
>
>to vortex-l
>
> JOJO:
> This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and
> bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out
> a few things.
>   
> 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away
> claiming that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation
> over Axil's best everytime.
>
> ***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the
> audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve
> to be keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would
> characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him
> from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow
> Up".  Why should anyone listen to you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.
>> GROW UP.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the
>> one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
>> subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
>> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
 could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
 posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
 ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
 folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
 on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
 different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
 excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
 turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
 wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
 validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
 with the dreaded gamma ray?


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>
> Google hits for
> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>
> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>
> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>>
>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed.
>> Or do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>>
>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>>>
>>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you wa

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>
> Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing with
> your "chip on your shoulder" childish attitude.  The record shows that you
> have insulted and have been childish to many people here before I showed
> up.  Here are just a sample of people you picked fights with.
>
> 1.   Peter Gluck
>
***What does SWOT mean?  He chose to engage in trading page after page of
insults rather than just define it.  Jed agreed that it should have been
spelled out.


> 2.  Lennart Thornros
>
***Fun set of insults on  a guy who is a strategic follower claiming to be
a "strategic leader".  How is it inappropriate to point that crap out?


> 3.  Mark at Zeropoint
>
***Not high on my remember-o-meter.


> 4.  Blaze Spinnaker
>
***The guy came onto this forum explicitly to fleece "true believers" and
even admitted it.  As a christian you should have a problem with it. I
did.  Go ahead and start from scratch with that guy and point out where my
insults were inappropriate.




> 5.  Dave Roberson
>
***Again not high on my remember-o-meter.


6.  Me.
>
***I started insulting you AFTER you pointed out that I had insulted
others.  When did I insult you BEFORE that?  And you strategically forget
that I insulted AXIL,whom you want to boot off this forum.  And I insulted
ED Storms, who didn't seem to know that Hsu won a Nobel Prize for laser
cooling.



>
>
> Should I go on?
>
***Yes, but you have given your commitment not to respond to me on this
thread.  So every time you do so, you break your word.  How important is
that to you?


>
> You can hve the last insult my friend,  Have at it.
>
***Thanks for letting me have the last word.  I doubt you will honor your
commitment.

>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.
>> If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem.
>>
> ***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious
> stuff".  And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've
> continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.
>
> Jojo Iznart 
> Aug 15 (1 day ago)
>
>
>to vortex-l
>
> JOJO:
> This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and
> bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out
> a few things.
>   
> 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away
> claiming that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation
> over Axil's best everytime.
>
> ***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the
> audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve
> to be keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would
> characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him
> from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow
> Up".  Why should anyone listen to you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.
>> GROW UP.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the
>> one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
>> subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
>> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
 could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
 posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
 ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
 folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
 on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
 different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
 excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
 turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
 wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
 validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
 with the dreaded gamma ray?


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

>   We are talking

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

For example, DGT uses a spark to produce nanoparticle based nano-antennas,
A BEC will form after the temperature of the plasma produced by the spark
get to a temperature where the nanoparticles condense out of the plasma.
All kinds of elements will form this nanoparticles. At that time, the SPPs
will begin to form on those nanoparticles and then the magnetic solitons
will join the global magnetic based BEC.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
wrote:

> At 20,000C, aluminum will vaporize and when this aluminum plasma cools,
> this LENR active  aluminum dust will form.
> ***I don't think you commented on my proposal that such cooling could form
> a "relative" BEC or Fermiion Condensate.  Even though the absolute
> temperature is well above what one might expect for a BEC (even a 1
> dimensional Luttinger Liquid BEC), the fact that it is rapidly cooling
> might create a relative localized 1D BEC.  What do you think?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> There are two types of nano-antennas that can produce the magnetic force
>> that LENR drives off of, the nickel nanowire is the first type and
>> the second is mainly hydrogen nanoparticles that condense out of the
>> cooling plasma and possibly some aluminum from Rossi's vaporizing primary
>> heater. This second type of nanoparticle don't really start producing
>> magnetism well until the temperature gets very high.
>>
>> For example, when a spark vaporizes a piece of aluminum, this type of
>> nano-particle is produced by the heat of the spark. At 20,000C, aluminum
>> will vaporize and when this aluminum plasma cools, this LENR active
>>  aluminum dust will form.
>>
>> Reactor meltdown is a two step process, the first stage is fueled by the
>> nickel and then the last stage just like in a spark discharge, the meltdown
>>  is fueled by the other types of nanoparticles that condense out of the
>> plasma from the structure of the reactor that the too hot nickel has
>> produced.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Axil:
>>>
>>> Why doesn't it shut down when the metal matrix melts?  Is it because the
>>> reaction moves more to the interior of the metal matrix where it is still
>>> solid?  The key to stopping such an activity would be to add a nitrogen
>>> epitaxial layer.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating
 temperature were the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat
 is produced. That range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the
 subcritical temperature range where energy must be input to "pump" the
 reaction. In order to produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor
 close to the maximum subcritical temperature: say 1000 C.  If for some
 reason, the reactor temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures
 will meal and the power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is
 when the reactor begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way
 to stop  power production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes
 supercritical(COP goes to infinity).

 This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why
 Rossi's reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that
 does not explode.


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart 
 wrote:

>  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but
> a certain fellow can't take no for an answer.
>
> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
> but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric 
> the
> rest of the theory is.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Steve High 
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the 
> learned
> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
> different t

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

If you're the child of God you claim to be, you could go through every
single one of those supposed misplaced insults and hold my feet to the
fire, justifying them or apologizing, if appropriate.  If it was truly
important to you.  But you didn't do it at the time, and your bringing it
up now harkens more to other things than this  issue that supposedly weighs
so heavy on your heart.

I doubt you'll do it.  The real reason you don't want to engage is that
you're afraid of the insults, and because you are not a man of your word.
Thanks for letting me have the last word.  I have my doubts you will honor
your own commitment, as the bible says... "let your yes be yes".


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>
> Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing with
> your "chip on your shoulder" childish attitude.  The record shows that you
> have insulted and have been childish to many people here before I showed
> up.  Here are just a sample of people you picked fights with.
>
> 1.   Peter Gluck
> 2.  Lennart Thornros
> 3.  Mark at Zeropoint
> 4.  Blaze Spinnaker
> 5.  Dave Roberson
> 6.  Me.
>
>
> Should I go on?
>
> You can hve the last insult my friend,  Have at it.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.
>> If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem.
>>
> ***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious
> stuff".  And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've
> continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.
>
> Jojo Iznart 
> Aug 15 (1 day ago)
>
>
>to vortex-l
>
> JOJO:
> This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and
> bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out
> a few things.
>   
> 5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away
> claiming that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation
> over Axil's best everytime.
>
> ***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the
> audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve
> to be keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would
> characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him
> from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow
> Up".  Why should anyone listen to you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.
>> GROW UP.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>  *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>>  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the
>> one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
>> subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
>> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
 could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
 posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
 ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
 folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
 on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
 different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
 excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
 turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
 wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
 validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
 with the dreaded gamma ray?


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>
> Google hits for
> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>
> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>
> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wro

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

At 20,000C, aluminum will vaporize and when this aluminum plasma cools,
this LENR active  aluminum dust will form.
***I don't think you commented on my proposal that such cooling could form
a "relative" BEC or Fermiion Condensate.  Even though the absolute
temperature is well above what one might expect for a BEC (even a 1
dimensional Luttinger Liquid BEC), the fact that it is rapidly cooling
might create a relative localized 1D BEC.  What do you think?


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> There are two types of nano-antennas that can produce the magnetic force
> that LENR drives off of, the nickel nanowire is the first type and
> the second is mainly hydrogen nanoparticles that condense out of the
> cooling plasma and possibly some aluminum from Rossi's vaporizing primary
> heater. This second type of nanoparticle don't really start producing
> magnetism well until the temperature gets very high.
>
> For example, when a spark vaporizes a piece of aluminum, this type of
> nano-particle is produced by the heat of the spark. At 20,000C, aluminum
> will vaporize and when this aluminum plasma cools, this LENR active
>  aluminum dust will form.
>
> Reactor meltdown is a two step process, the first stage is fueled by the
> nickel and then the last stage just like in a spark discharge, the meltdown
>  is fueled by the other types of nanoparticles that condense out of the
> plasma from the structure of the reactor that the too hot nickel has
> produced.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil:
>>
>> Why doesn't it shut down when the metal matrix melts?  Is it because the
>> reaction moves more to the interior of the metal matrix where it is still
>> solid?  The key to stopping such an activity would be to add a nitrogen
>> epitaxial layer.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating temperature were
>>> the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat is produced. That
>>> range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the subcritical temperature
>>> range where energy must be input to "pump" the reaction. In order to
>>> produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor close to the maximum
>>> subcritical temperature: say 1000 C.  If for some reason, the reactor
>>> temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures will meal and the
>>> power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is when the reactor
>>> begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way to stop  power
>>> production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes supercritical(COP
>>> goes to infinity).
>>>
>>> This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's
>>> reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does not
>>> explode.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but
 a certain fellow can't take no for an answer.

 Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
 nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
 I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
 but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
 account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
 it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
 with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
 and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the
 rest of the theory is.


 Jojo





 - Original Message -
 *From:* Steve High 
 *To:* Vortex 
 *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

 Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
 could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
 posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
 ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
 folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
 on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
 different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
 excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
 turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
 wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
 validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
 with the dreaded gamma ray?


 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
 wrote:

>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>
> Google hits for
> "historicity

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

Life is too short and I have other things more important than dealing with your 
"chip on your shoulder" childish attitude.  The record shows that you have 
insulted and have been childish to many people here before I showed up.  Here 
are just a sample of people you picked fights with.

1.   Peter Gluck
2.  Lennart Thornros
3.  Mark at Zeropoint
4.  Blaze Spinnaker
5.  Dave Roberson
6.  Me.


Should I go on?

You can hve the last insult my friend,  Have at it.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL







  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.  If 
you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem. 
  ***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious stuff".  
And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've continued to 
respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.  

  Jojo Iznart   
   Aug 15 (1 day ago)
   
   
   
  to vortex-l 


  JOJO:  
 
   

  This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and 
bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out a 
few things.
   
  5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away claiming 
that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation over Axil's 
best everytime.


  ***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the 
audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve to be 
keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would characterize 
your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him from this discussion 
group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow Up".  Why should anyone 
listen to you?  







   
I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.  GROW 
UP.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the 
one guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this 
subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his word, it 
would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.




  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

The Biblical stuff has other venues.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High  
wrote:

  Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric 
dating could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout 
posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting 
ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned 
folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion on 
radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a different 
thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic excitation of the 
nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that turn into muons that 
go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am wondering if these 
individual steps have received scientific exposition or validation elsewhere, 
and can all this take place without having to deal with the dreaded gamma ray?



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley  
wrote:

We are talking rational history here, right?  


Google hits for 

"historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3


"historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000


Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the 
Bhagavad Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their 
answer is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised 
believing it, so they don't rock that boat.  







On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
 wrote:

  Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about 
Jesus, in his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.  


  It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to 
feed. Or do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?




  2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart : 


I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an 
insult.

As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove 
to me.  Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



Jojo






  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ 
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

There are two types of nano-antennas that can produce the magnetic force
that LENR drives off of, the nickel nanowire is the first type and
the second is mainly hydrogen nanoparticles that condense out of the
cooling plasma and possibly some aluminum from Rossi's vaporizing primary
heater. This second type of nanoparticle don't really start producing
magnetism well until the temperature gets very high.

For example, when a spark vaporizes a piece of aluminum, this type of
nano-particle is produced by the heat of the spark. At 20,000C, aluminum
will vaporize and when this aluminum plasma cools, this LENR active
 aluminum dust will form.

Reactor meltdown is a two step process, the first stage is fueled by the
nickel and then the last stage just like in a spark discharge, the meltdown
 is fueled by the other types of nanoparticles that condense out of the
plasma from the structure of the reactor that the too hot nickel has
produced.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Axil:
>
> Why doesn't it shut down when the metal matrix melts?  Is it because the
> reaction moves more to the interior of the metal matrix where it is still
> solid?  The key to stopping such an activity would be to add a nitrogen
> epitaxial layer.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating temperature were
>> the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat is produced. That
>> range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the subcritical temperature
>> range where energy must be input to "pump" the reaction. In order to
>> produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor close to the maximum
>> subcritical temperature: say 1000 C.  If for some reason, the reactor
>> temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures will meal and the
>> power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is when the reactor
>> begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way to stop  power
>> production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes supercritical(COP
>> goes to infinity).
>>
>> This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's
>> reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does not
>> explode.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a
>>> certain fellow can't take no for an answer.
>>>
>>> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
>>> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
>>> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
>>> but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
>>> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
>>> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
>>> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
>>> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the
>>> rest of the theory is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Steve High 
>>> *To:* Vortex 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>>
>>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
>>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
>>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
>>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
>>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
>>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
>>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
>>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
>>> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
>>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
>>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
>>> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
   We are talking rational history here, right?

 Google hits for
 "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3

 "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000

 Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
 Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
 is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
 believing it, so they don't rock that boat.




 On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
 wrote:

> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>
> It's very likely that Jesus was carpent

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.
> If you are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem.
>
***bullshit.  Your point number 5 had nothing to do with "religious
stuff".  And you've continued to comment on religious stuff.  And you've
continued to respond to me, after you said you wouldn't.

Jojo Iznart 
Aug 15 (1 day ago)


to vortex-l

JOJO:
This will be my last response on this subject lest I get too hyped up and
bring the quick judgement of the mob here again.  But let me just point out
a few things.
 
5. I don't understand Axil's audacity to challenge Ed and come away
claiming that he is more right than Ed.  I'll take Ed's worst speculation
over Axil's best everytime.

***You ain't true to your word.  Your last set of speculations has the
audacity to "challenge Ed", and you are a hypocrite to boot.  You deserve
to be keyed up on.  I would not characterize it as bullying.  I would
characterize your crappy attitude towards Axil and trying to remove him
from this discussion group as bullying, "as if you are the boss here.  Grow
Up".  Why should anyone listen to you?








> I am sick of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.  GROW
> UP.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
> But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the one
> guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
> subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
> word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
>>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
>>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
>>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
>>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
>>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
>>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
>>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
>>> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
>>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
>>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
>>> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
   We are talking rational history here, right?

 Google hits for
 "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3

 "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000

 Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
 Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
 is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
 believing it, so they don't rock that boat.




 On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
 wrote:

> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>
> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>
>
> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>>
>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
>> Are these passages from the Mahabharata?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

Everyone knows that I meant to not comment on religious stuff anymore.  If you 
are too dumb to realize that, well my friend, that is your problem.  I am sick 
of your bullying and attitude as if you are the boss here.  GROW UP.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the one 
guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this subject 
any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his word, it would 
be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.




  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

The Biblical stuff has other venues.



On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High  
wrote:

  Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating 
could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout 
posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting 
ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned 
folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion on 
radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a different 
thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic excitation of the 
nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that turn into muons that 
go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am wondering if these 
individual steps have received scientific exposition or validation elsewhere, 
and can all this take place without having to deal with the dreaded gamma ray?



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley  
wrote:

We are talking rational history here, right?  


Google hits for 

"historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3


"historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000


Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad 
Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer is 
basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised believing 
it, so they don't rock that boat.  







On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha  
wrote:

  Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in 
his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna. 


  It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. 
Or do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?




  2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :


I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.

As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to 
me.  Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



Jojo






  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[Jojo Iznart]

James, Please elaborate on this technology.  If it is enormously profitable as 
you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce 
food.  We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially 
growing population.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: Analog Fan 
  Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors


  As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there.  Let me 
define what I mean:


  I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on 
nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological 
footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the 
point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural 
foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem 
wouldn't be malnutrition but gout.


  When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to 
manufacture it is already specified.


  Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is that 
its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable.



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan  wrote:

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:





>Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due 
diligence?


I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much 
diligence they did do.

It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of 
poor due diligence on investments is legendary.  I've seen a ~$90 million 
dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due 
diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a 
house of cards. 


>Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors
>who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at
>BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely?  


You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that 
Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. 
But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be 
extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, 
that's for sure. 

The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company 
involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square 
foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab?

493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O 
R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data


>Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we?


Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they 
that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they 
had a working product.

AF

 
 
  493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL 
ESTATE C/O R.MILLS...Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), 
owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. 
 
  View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

But Axil my friend, nickel nanostructures such as your nanowires, nanoantennas, 
nanotips, etc will begin to sinter at temps lower than 400C.  They are gone at 
400C-1000C.  If they are the NAE as you theorize, they are at best one-time use 
NAE, which would mean that the reactor can not be restarted after its first run.

Please explain to me how the hotcat can run at 1000C, shut down, and then be 
restarted at will.  Your theory can not explain this.

This simple logic tells me why your theory is wrong.  The basic premise of your 
speculation do not hold up.  It appears impossible for nickel nanostructures to 
be the NAE, at least in the Hotcat.  Please go back and modify your theory 
according to my suggestion below.

If on the other hand, the NAE is just a simple blob of nickel spherical 
nanoparticle, then that's different (note that a blob of nickel nanoparticle is 
not a "nanostructure" per se.  It does not have a structure such as a nanowire, 
a nanotip, a nanomesh, etc., it's just a spherical blob.)  If the NAE is just a 
simple blob of nickel nanoparticle, it will not matter if it is sintered or 
partially melted (which would be the case in the Hotcat).  It will serve as an 
effective NAE until it evaporates, or it sublimates, or it gets stuck and 
melted and merged into another nickel nanoparticle, the result of which would 
be a bigger partially melted nickel particle.  If this particle is still small 
enough, it may still continue to act as an NAE.  If it becomes too big, then it 
stops being the NAE.

This speculation of mine explains a few problems.

1.  This would explain why we have quiescence after a few months.  The reason 
is that the nickel spherical blobs of nickel nanoparticle have agglomerated 
into bigger blobs which will not serve as NAE anymore.  The nickel has to be 
removed and reprocessed.   Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton, monopole, charge 
pumping, metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we have quiescence.  Why 
would we have quiescence after this BEC dynamic NAE has formed?  The reactor 
should go on forever, right?

2.  This would explain why the nickel microparticle that Rossi uses has to be 
processed into "sea-urchin" particles.  The nanometer sized spikes are the NAE. 
 When these spikes get heated, they break off from the mother microparticle and 
starts floating in the Hydrogen envelope where they serve as NAE.  It would not 
matter if they are partially melted, they are still capable of serving as NAE. 

3.  This would explain why there would be a need to reheat the hotcat.  Rossi 
needs to reheat the hotcat to break off some more nanoparticles to serve as new 
NAE sites as the old blobs stick to each other and stops becoming active NAE 
sites.

4.  This explanation fits nicely with the supposed architecture of the "mouse 
and cat".  The mouse produces the nickel nanoparticles for the cat.  This would 
also explain why the mouse itself is overunity also.  Fundamentally the 
reaction in both the mouse and the cat is the same.  The mouse is simply 
engineered to have lots of sea-urchin microparticles.  As these microparticles 
are heated, the tips break off into nanoparticles that serve as dynamically 
created NAE to the cat.  When all the tips are broken off, no further "dynamic" 
NAE are created, hence, we have quiescence.  The mouse needs to be "recharged" 
with a new batch of nickel sea-urchin microparticles.

5.  This would explain why we have runaway. A balance has to be achieved 
between the rate of nanoparticle production and temperature.  Too hot and too 
much nanoparticles would break off resulting in runaway.  This also explains 
why Rossi had to seperate the mouse from the Cat.  If he puts the sea-urchin 
microparticles in the cat, he would not be able to control how much 
nanoparticles are broken off because he can not finely control the temp of the 
cat.  So, he puts the sea-urchin microparticle in the mouse where he can 
control the temperature via external power.  This allows him fine tuned control 
of the whole hotcat.  Axil's dynamic BEC Soliton, monopole, charge pumping, 
metaphasic shielding NAE can not explain why we have runaway.



How the nickel nanoparticle blobs serve as NAE - I do not know.  I am not smart 
enough to answer that.  Maybe others can explain how a blob of nickel 
nanoparticle serves as the NAE.



Jojo











  IAre you claiming your NAE is a simple blob of nickel spherical nanoparticale?



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 1:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating temperature were the 
nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat is produced. That range 
is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the subcritical temperature range where 
energy must be input to "pump" the reaction. In order to produce the highest 
COP, Rossi must run his reactor close to the maximum subcr

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

But this might be the right venue for Axil's latest theory because the one
guy who introduced bibilical stuff has said he wouldn't comment on this
subject any longer.  Well, other than the fact that he hasn't kept his
word, it would be a good plan to have the discussion on this thread.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
>> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
>> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are talking rational history here, right?
>>>
>>> Google hits for
>>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>>
>>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>>
>>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
 his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.

 It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
 do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?


 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>
> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
> Are these passages from the Mahabharata?
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>

 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Axil:

Why doesn't it shut down when the metal matrix melts?  Is it because the
reaction moves more to the interior of the metal matrix where it is still
solid?  The key to stopping such an activity would be to add a nitrogen
epitaxial layer.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating temperature were
> the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat is produced. That
> range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the subcritical temperature
> range where energy must be input to "pump" the reaction. In order to
> produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor close to the maximum
> subcritical temperature: say 1000 C.  If for some reason, the reactor
> temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures will meal and the
> power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is when the reactor
> begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way to stop  power
> production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes supercritical(COP
> goes to infinity).
>
> This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's
> reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does not
> explode.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>>  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a
>> certain fellow can't take no for an answer.
>>
>> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
>> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
>> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
>> but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
>> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
>> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
>> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
>> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the
>> rest of the theory is.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Steve High 
>> *To:* Vortex 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>>
>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
>> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
>> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>>>
>>> Google hits for
>>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>>
>>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>>
>>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
 his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.

 It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
 do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?


 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :

  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>
> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
> Are these passages from the Mahabharata?
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>

 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Didn't you say you weren't going to be commenting on this subject any
longer?




On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Iznart 
wrote:

>  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a
> certain fellow can't take no for an answer.
>
> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
> but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the
> rest of the theory is.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Steve High 
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>>
>> Google hits for
>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>
>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>
>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
>>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>>>
>>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
>>> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>>>
>>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.

 As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
 Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



 Jojo


>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[Lennart Thornros]

Vortex James and mixent.
I think you are right in one regard. We are in a rent seeking society. Why?
The reason is that we have indoctrinated ourselves to rely on stats,
computers and academic wisdom. That is a problem my grand children's
children will have to deal with. Credit score is important - not. The whole
investment community is on the same track. Models are imposed and if it
does not fit so be it. WE will take the sure ones - we leave the big
catches to the others as nobody will reward us for the occasional break of
the sound barrier but a steady 500 miles per hour gives us more bonuses.
The next thing is that everybody has the same model. They all use Excel to
make the model based on old stuff. They all have the same model.
Now next step, put in LENR or any unknown technology in the model and the
answer is "NO CORRELATION".
That equals , do not invest.
The result for the investment community is that they all do mediocre. They
all do the same. Any new ideas will require as much effort in to financing,
management, leadership etc. as is spent on the core issue. I understand
that most Vortices are critical of Dr. Randy Mills. However, one need to
applaud his ability to raise money. It is wrong to say that his investors
are stupid or do not understand. He has identified his target investors and
even after 25 mllion dollars ?? he is abel to get them to over subscribe.
I do not know anything about Axil's ideas - I do not understand more than
half of it. I know Peter is a smart guy so I trust Axil has a few ideas
worth following up on. There are to problems:
1. Axil does not invoke any trust by being anonymous.
2. One need to talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in
professor's language.
The last is a Swedish say by the way (not perfectly translated).
To Axil or Lixa? there will be very little traction for your ideas without
you open up. You need a 'translator' somebody needs to clad the theories in
words possible to understand by an investor. 2nd degree differential
equations does mean nothing to any ANY investor.
I think we have a lot of expertise in Vortex. We do miss people doing
experiments as I understand. I am a strong believer of a modern approach to
problem solving. Many small entities work together in an per need basis.
That is the strengths of the western society. We have all the pieces,
building it to a massive organization cannot happen without prior success
(or Chinese wager). Then the massive organization relies on the models I
mentioned above and they provide s porly. Exxon lost half a
billion dollars on a stupid thing per James. It does not mean anything. I
know without having one idea about the project, the people or the timing
that everybody has CYA. Nobody suffered and Exxon is anonymous. Life goes
on and here we are complaining. I suggest to make some program and confirm
the basic ideas and then find the right investors. Hard to find them? Not ,
really. I do not know anyone of them but I am sure I could smell them out.
I guarantee that I am not risk averse. I do not thing there is any shortage
of investment money. I do not thing risk taking is unusual in humans - on
the contrary.
The ten million you need for the eco project, James are available. I have
no idea about te project but I know hwy you have had no luck. One need to
talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in professor's
language.

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 Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:54 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Its worse than that.  I've seen Exxon blow $600M on a competing technology
> that had far less to offer under anything resembling due diligence.  The US
> government has blown billions on the Tokamak over a period of decades
> despite the founders of the program denouncing it.  Then there is the Space
> Shuttle.
>
> No, its not being "risk averse" alone that defines "dumb" money.
>
> The capital structures are constructed by rent seeking:
>
> Public sector rent seeking:  Groups figuring out how to extract money from
> the taxpayer and/or Federal Reserve that they they, in fact, use to engage
> in more activities targeting the same public sector extraction.
>
> Private sector rent seeking:  Investors looking for natural monopolies aka
> network effects aka network externalities while avoiding paying for the
> government services that protect their de facto monopoly properties.
>
> This results in a general capital structure in the economy that is
> incapable of doing risk assessment and management in technology development
> -- regardless of whether it is risk averse or not.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Indeed. Hum

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[James Bowery]

Its worse than that.  I've seen Exxon blow $600M on a competing technology
that had far less to offer under anything resembling due diligence.  The US
government has blown billions on the Tokamak over a period of decades
despite the founders of the program denouncing it.  Then there is the Space
Shuttle.

No, its not being "risk averse" alone that defines "dumb" money.

The capital structures are constructed by rent seeking:

Public sector rent seeking:  Groups figuring out how to extract money from
the taxpayer and/or Federal Reserve that they they, in fact, use to engage
in more activities targeting the same public sector extraction.

Private sector rent seeking:  Investors looking for natural monopolies aka
network effects aka network externalities while avoiding paying for the
government services that protect their de facto monopoly properties.

This results in a general capital structure in the economy that is
incapable of doing risk assessment and management in technology development
-- regardless of whether it is risk averse or not.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> Indeed. Humans are very risk averse. They are willing to invest large sums
> in
> things they are tried and true, even if the promised return is only low,
> but
> very unwilling to invest in something completely new, even if the promised
> return is very high.
> This attitude could well be the downfall of civilization.
>
> >As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there.  Let me
> >define what I mean:
> >
> >I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on
> >nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological
> >footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to
> >the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the
> >agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet
> so
> >rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout.
> >
> >When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line
> >to manufacture it is already specified.
> >
> >Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is
> >that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_
> >profitable.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Alain Sepeda]

they seems to add a sound attenuation by smart positioning of multiple rows
of blades; with good shape


2014-08-17 0:33 GMT+02:00 Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. :

> Thanks for the link.
>
> This seems like a silly patent, putting a fan in a tube has a century of
> prior art -- Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> *From:* Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:36 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine
>
>
>
> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
>
>
> Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/
>
>
>
> The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was
> covered at Vortex
>
> Ad Astra,
>
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>
>
> --
>
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>  protection is active.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Jones Beene]

This experiment is abysmal. What a waste of time and effort by highly skilled 
guys who were inquisitive enough to try something.

 

A few hours consultation with an LENR expert and they could have possibly seen 
something interesting on merely the switch to better electrodes.

 

Why platinum instead of Pd? Why Al ? Makes no sense. 

 

Why not use a few hundred meters of .1 mm nickel wire as did Mizuno?

 

Did they really think Pt would be effective? Based on what?

 

It is infuriating to see what could have been a decent effort go to waste.

 

 

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:30 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

 

just booeing trying to avoid a troll patent his plane electric "fan"  used with 
LENR...

 

more surprising is this finding in Germany

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/555-Researchers-from-German-University-and-Aerospace-Agency-investigate-LENR-with-Co/?postID=1057#post1057

a modest test by 2 researchers from a university and... german aerospace agency

 

http://elib.dlr.de/89820/1/LENR_Report_paper.v3.pdf

 

that one is for jed, at least as a citation

 

just a test baloon it seems, to ask funding

 

2014-08-16 22:35 GMT+02:00 Ron Kita :

Greetings Vortex-L,

 

Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/

 

The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was 
covered at Vortex

Ad Astra,

Ron Kita, Chiralex

 

RE: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Thanks for the link.

This seems like a silly patent, putting a fan in a tube has a century of prior 
art -- Am I missing something?



From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:36 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine



Greetings Vortex-L,



Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/



The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was 
covered at Vortex

Ad Astra,

Ron Kita, Chiralex



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Alain Sepeda]

just booeing trying to avoid a troll patent his plane electric "fan"  used
with LENR...

more surprising is this finding in Germany
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/555-Researchers-from-German-University-and-Aerospace-Agency-investigate-LENR-with-Co/?postID=1057#post1057
a modest test by 2 researchers from a university and... german aerospace
agency

http://elib.dlr.de/89820/1/LENR_Report_paper.v3.pdf

that one is for jed, at least as a citation

just a test baloon it seems, to ask funding


2014-08-16 22:35 GMT+02:00 Ron Kita :

> Greetings Vortex-L,
>
> Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/
>
> The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was
> covered at Vortex
> Ad Astra,
> Ron Kita, Chiralex
>

Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 13:15:37 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
>That is the model that I try to understand Axil.  But I do not believe that an 
>isolated single moving particle can emit thermal energy directly. 

...unless it happens to be in a magnetic field, in which case it can emit
cyclotron radiation.

> A free proton moving uniformly in space has a relative velocity to every 
> observer except one at rest to it.  It therefore can not emit thermal energy 
> in the form of IR without the interaction of other particles around it.   The 
> infrared photons contain energy that once existed as kinetic energy(thermal) 
> of the system of particles.  Gravitational energy, of course, can end up as 
> photon energy when a cloud of hydrogen gas and dust condenses.
>
>Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sat, 9 Aug 2014 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>I guess that spin energy is strongly associated with angular momentum while 
>thermal energy tends to be considered associated with linear momentum.

"Off centre" linear momentum is angular momentum.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[mixent]

In reply to  James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500:
Hi,

Indeed. Humans are very risk averse. They are willing to invest large sums in
things they are tried and true, even if the promised return is only low, but
very unwilling to invest in something completely new, even if the promised
return is very high.
This attitude could well be the downfall of civilization.

>As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there.  Let me
>define what I mean:
>
>I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on
>nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological
>footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to
>the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the
>agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so
>rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout.
>
>When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line
>to manufacture it is already specified.
>
>Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is
>that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_
>profitable.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Although I agree with your general premise that things do not add up with
> BLP - a reasonable explanation for owning this facility - and it being on
> the market now could be fairly mundane.
>
Google maps shows this to be the same building as 493 Old Trenton Rd.,
Cranbury Township, New Jersey, where he has always been.  Maybe he
owned part of the building and has bought the rest.

[Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex,

Not sure how many Vortex folks googled: Axil s email:JANAP128...hmm.

Axil is an enigma.  Kudos to him.

I am a Villanova economist...not spoiled by Einstein dogma...and Scientific
Theory.
Grins,
Ron Kita,Chiralex
Doylestown PA.a close friend of the late Gene Mallove.
My other friend, Boyd Bushman, ex- Lockheed: Follow the data- theory be
damned.

RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[Jones Beene]

Although I agree with your general premise that things do not add up with
BLP - a reasonable explanation for owning this facility - and it being on
the market now could be fairly mundane. 

IIRC Mills bought a large aerospace facility maybe a decade ago, for pennies
on the dollar (probably it was this one but not sure) when real estate was
much lower in price. At that time he was claiming that he was months away
from a commercial product. He failed to get to the commercial product - not
just once, but many times since then.

Consequently, he may have changed his entire business plan; foregoing any
prospect of manufacturing, and instead focusing on licensing others to do
the manufacturing... that is, he can ever deliver a marketable product.
Doubts about the SunCell are stronger than ever.

BLP may see several million in profit on this building, to add to the recent
haul - and/or to pay a handsome bonuses to RM. It has been privately rumored
that he draws an enormous salary for an R&D company - but there is no proof
of that in the public record.

From: Analog Fan
 
The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth
does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a
fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit
in a smaller leased lab?

493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT
REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data
 



<>

[Vo]:Boeing- LENR Patent Application Jet Aircraft Engine

[Ron Kita]

Greetings Vortex-L,

Courtesy of Alain Cortmeurs website:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/2-Boeing-patent-electric-propulsion-system-fan-for-planes-considering-LENR-powerin/

The Boeing patent application was published May 2014..not sure if this was
covered at Vortex
Ad Astra,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

The problem is the noise.  Noise affects the FWHM of the system and
> normally getting this noise low enough so that the FWHM is smaller than
> 1keV (to get some resolution of low keV photons) requires cooling the
> sensor to liquid nitrogen temperatures.
>

I imagine the noise obscuring the lower energy signals is stochastic.  I
wonder whether a filter could be developed to do a fourier analysis and
then partially subtract out predominant frequencies seen during calibration
runs.  Perhaps something like that could be effective enough to avoid the
need for liquid nitrogen cooling.


> I am also considering construction of a thermoelectric cloud chamber for
> charged particle evaluation of the LENR powder ash (a la Piantelli).
>

That would be pretty cool.  On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli
anecdote, which I read somewhere, but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking
it down.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[James Bowery]

As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there.  Let me
define what I mean:

I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on
nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological
footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to
the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the
agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so
rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout.

When I say "waiting on" I mean it is demonstrated and the production line
to manufacture it is already specified.

Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by "demonstrated" is
that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_
profitable.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan  wrote:

> On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due
> diligence?
>
> I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much
> diligence they did do.
>
> It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of
> poor due diligence on investments is legendary.  I've seen a ~$90 million
> dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of
> due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund
> was a house of cards.
>
> >Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the
> investors
> >who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists
> at
> >BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely?
>
> You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that
> Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is
> impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results
> look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a
> lot of money, that's for sure.
>
> The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company
> involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand
> square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller
> leased lab?
>
> 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O
> R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data
> 
>
>
> >Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we?
>
> Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is
> they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease
> if they had a working product.
>
> AF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O
> R.MILLS... 
> Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by
> BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township.
>  View on njparcels.com 
>  Preview by Yahoo
>
>

Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors

[Analog Fan]

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart  
wrote:



 
>Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence?

I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence 
they did do.

It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor 
due diligence on investments is legendary.  I've seen a ~$90 million dollar 
investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due 
diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a 
house of cards. 


>Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors
>who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at
>BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely?  

You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills 
has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But 
in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely 
unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for 
sure. 

The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company 
involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square 
foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab?

493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O 
R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data

>Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we?

Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they 
that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they 
had a working product.

AF

  
          
493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O 
R.MILLS...
Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT 
REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township.  
View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo  

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

This may be an opinion not held by many, but I believe that DGT has solved
the control problem. This is a fallout of how the two different pumping
methods work.

It seems like a simple matter to add a thermostat to the design. The max
safe temperature is reached as determined by the thermostat, the pumping
power is turned off.

In the Rossi system, the heat from the primary heater, interferes with the
operation of the thermostat and Rossi must run his reactor blind without
feed back.

In the DGT reactor control method, the low temperature state is detected by
a thermostat and a arc pulse is triggered. All the pumping required to
reverse the fall in reactor temperature is delivered in 20 milliseconds.
The reactor's temperature begins to rise like a ball hit with a bat. The
path of the ball is well defined by the laws of physics and its the
temperature rise profile is the same without exception.

This is DGT's big advantage. Precise reaction control and safety will in
the end make DGT the leader in LENR reactor market share.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  From Axil:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's
>
> > reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does
>
> > not explode.
>
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> Regardless of what theory might best explain the excess heat being
> generated from Rossi's device, I know I have come to a similar conclusion
> in the sense that, IMHO, he has yet to engineer a practical way of
> controlling the reaction. Without a practical way of controlling the
> reaction, without a reliable On and Off switch, the device has no hope of
> being commercialized.
>
>
>
> What saddens me is not the personal opinion that Rossi has yet to find a
> reliable way to control the device. I'm frustrated by the apparent fact
> that the lack of controllability appears to be used as an excuse, as
> justification exploited by skeptics and debunkers to continue to ignore the
> more extraordinary fact that excess heat that cannot be accounted for by
> any known chemical means is nevertheless happening. Kind of a shell game
> going on here.
>
>
>
> I still believe there is very good chance that eventually the equivalent
> of an On and Off switch will be worked out. It strikes me mostly as just
> another engineering challenge that needs to be tackled with a sufficient
> amount of financial backing.  So... In time.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

RE: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Axil:

 

...

 

> This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's

> reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does

> not explode.

 

I agree.

 

Regardless of what theory might best explain the excess heat being generated 
from Rossi's device, I know I have come to a similar conclusion in the sense 
that, IMHO, he has yet to engineer a practical way of controlling the reaction. 
Without a practical way of controlling the reaction, without a reliable On and 
Off switch, the device has no hope of being commercialized. 

 

What saddens me is not the personal opinion that Rossi has yet to find a 
reliable way to control the device. I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that 
the lack of controllability appears to be used as an excuse, as justification 
exploited by skeptics and debunkers to continue to ignore the more 
extraordinary fact that excess heat that cannot be accounted for by any known 
chemical means is nevertheless happening. Kind of a shell game going on here.

 

I still believe there is very good chance that eventually the equivalent of an 
On and Off switch will be worked out. It strikes me mostly as just another 
engineering challenge that needs to be tackled with a sufficient amount of 
financial backing.  So... In time.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Axil Axil]

In the Rossi reactor, there is a range in the operating temperature were
the nickel nanostructures do not melt and yet excess heat is produced. That
range is between about 400C to 1100C. This is the subcritical temperature
range where energy must be input to "pump" the reaction. In order to
produce the highest COP, Rossi must run his reactor close to the maximum
subcritical temperature: say 1000 C.  If for some reason, the reactor
temperature exceeds 1100C, the nickel nanostructures will meal and the
power output of the dynamic NAE becomes a factor. This is when the reactor
begins to melt down. Rossi has not discovered a way to stop  power
production of the dynamic NAE before the reactor goes supercritical(COP
goes to infinity).

This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's
reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does not
explode.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a
> certain fellow can't take no for an answer.
>
> Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his
> nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.
> I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff,
> but it is a very strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to
> account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing
> it aside as something I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up
> with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter
> and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the
> rest of the theory is.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Steve High 
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>   We are talking rational history here, right?
>>
>> Google hits for
>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>
>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>
>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
>>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>>>
>>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
>>> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>>>
>>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.

 As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
 Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



 Jojo


>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Jojo Iznart]

I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a certain 
fellow can't take no for an answer.

Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his nanostructure 
can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps.  I know I keep 
harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff, but it is a very 
strong objection to his theory.  He needs to be able to account for this 
physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing it aside as something 
I am too dumb to understand.  Unless he can come up with a reasonable 
explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter and melt, his theory 
really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the rest of the theory is.


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve High 
  To: Vortex 
  Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL


  Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating could 
be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout posting 
which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting ideas. I 
would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned folk at 
vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion on 
radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a different 
thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic excitation of the 
nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that turn into muons that 
go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am wondering if these 
individual steps have received scientific exposition or validation elsewhere, 
and can all this take place without having to deal with the dreaded gamma ray?



  On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

We are talking rational history here, right?  


Google hits for 

"historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3


"historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000


Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad Gita, 
"do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer is 
basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised believing 
it, so they don't rock that boat.  







On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

  Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in his 
previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna. 


  It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or do 
you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?




  2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :


I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.

As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.  
Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



Jojo






  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:magnetism, does it effect space and time?

[Harvey Norris]

If you take a neon sign transformer,(NST) and light a neon with it; then film 
that neon discharge with a digital camera, you get what you see, a constant 
neon discharge. The camera takes 30 pictures/sec and each picture shows the 
neon discharge. The camera is timed to the source 60 hz frequency input so 
essentially it is taking a picture every 2 cycles of the 60 hz signal, 
presumably during the peak of that cycle. The ferromagnetic neon transformer by 
common sense has the frequency output of its secondary matched to that of the 
primary, nothing unusual here. Now we build a different type of transformer; an 
air core transformer where these involve tuned circuits where the L inductor 
reactance is matched to an equal reactance C quantity. This occurs both on the 
primary and the secondary. In this regard I built such an air core resonant 
transformer using two seriesed 500 ft spools of 14 gauge wire,(~ 2.6 ohms); and 
for the secondaries placed on each polar
 exit volume of magnetic field of the seriesed primaries I used spools of 23 
gauge wire @ 140 ohms. Because those coils are 140 ohms it is easy to find an 
equal reactance C value by simply plugging those quantities into the 
120VAC/60hz wall outlet and finding both amperage quantities to be equal when 
both L and C are tested. The simple test is to put both quantities in series 
and first short the coil out and then short the C value out; and when the 
amperages of both reactance tests are closely matched this is the closest 
resonant combination that can be had with the components on hand. Now we of 
course will assume that when we test the matching reactance with the 60 hz line 
inputs: this same paired C quantity with that L quantity should be employed 
when instead the 60 hz frequency signal is acquired by air core induction 
instead of a direct line connection source of emf. After all the resonance is 
determined by the frequency input. We would scarcely
 suspect that the frequency between the primary and secondary could be 
different! So going onward now we consider how we might test those secondaries 
for the air core secondary case, although only an idiot would suppose that such 
a test need be made in the first place; since they have already been tested 
with the line connections themselves. Nevertheless that test cannot be made in 
the same manner as the first testings because once we connect the coil in a 
loop with their respective C value for the air core secondary induction case we 
have no distinction being made between whether they are placed in series or 
whether they are in parallel. So common sense tells us that instead we can 
merely connect an amperage meter in the loop and try substituting various 
combinations of C values paired with the L value until we find the value that 
yields the highest amperage. When this was done for my air core transformer 
case I was amazed to find a significant
 difference and then concluded that for resonance at least a frequency input by 
line connection compared to a frequency input by voltage induced through the 
air had different C values to be used for pairings to achieve resonance. This 
is getting a little off topic for the issue at hand but let me cut that thought 
short by saying that for 465 hz alternator input tests a single 500 ft 14 gauge 
coil might use 10uf for the line connection case, but only need 8uf for the 
airborne voltage case.  Now to get to the business at hand.  Einstein theory 
dictates that gravity will distort the space time continuum.  But what about 
unencumbered  electrically current made magnetism without a ferromagnetic 
constriction of amplification placed on those magnetic lines of force?  We have 
all seen the old western movies where when the coach stage comes to a stop, the 
wagon wheels appear to briefly move backwards because of the camera/event 
interaction. Now what
 would happen if the camera recording the neon discharge from my air core 
transformer secondaries had actually distorted the time of its operation 
slightly from what was received on its 60 cycles per second primary input? It 
would output a slightly different frequency.  And the 60 cycles per second 
camera recording the neon discharge would actually start taking pictures 
towards the time period when the neon bulb was at its zero voltage AC polarity 
change. And when we increase the magnetism the cycle time between on and off 
discharge pictures also changes.  But our eyes themselves only see a constant 
discharge... What the camera sees and what our eyes see are two different 
events.
See my comments at
Magnetism Stiffens Space-Time
Magnetism Stiffens Space-Time

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Magnetism Stiffens Space-Time
Reworked equation suggests Einstein's sheets aren't quite so rubbery  
View on news.sciencemag.org Preview by Yahoo  
 
1/10% Time distortion between load and camera reference frame 
1/10% Time distortion between load and camera reference frame

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
1/10% Time distortion

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[H Veeder]

this thread reminds me of this scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpkWT5voTSE

harry


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> The Biblical stuff has other venues.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
>> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
>> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
>> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
>> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
>> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
>> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
>> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
>> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
>> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
>> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
>> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are talking rational history here, right?
>>>
>>> Google hits for
>>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>>
>>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>>
>>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Axil Axil]

The particle conservation rules involving overall  conservation of *baryon*
number and the conservation of *lepton* number. If a lepton in input into
the reaction, then a lepton must come out of the reaction as an output, The
same is true from baryon conservation. How are these interaction laws
conserved?


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Bob,
>
>
>
> In general- the conclusion is that DDLs should operate to enhance fusion
> due to proximity effects, would only be valid if they formed as molecular
> pairs correct? Apparently, since we do not see gammas which would indicate
> fusion, the DDL does not form as pairs, and is only an atomic species which
> is relatively neutral (no net charge).
>
>
>
> Two DDDLs would therefore be less likely to fuse than a deuterium
> molecule, since the electrons are so tightly bound and are now
> relativistic, which although that velocity raises the mass – it severely
> reduces the time constant (should there be something equivalent to a Lawson
> criteria involved, where the “confinement time” only relates to the time
> when a single electron is a correct position and the other electron is also
> in the correct 180 degree shift).
>
>
>
> As you mention there is little possibility of actual charge screening, as
> with negatively charged muons, which are slow comparatively, since the DDL
> are not charged; but we can agree that if DDL could form as molecules, then
> especially DT fusion would be certainly be likely, since the threshold is
> so low but only if one electron is lost an not the other.
>
>
>
> Aside from that – the main problem I have with Mizuno’s new work in
> particular is what you suggested earlier – how can DDLs, with high IP, show
> up as mass-2 in a mass spec?
>
>
>
> By focusing on that one issue - there is actually an emerging answer, but
> it needs more vetting - with input from Clean Planet, if they will provide
> it.
>
>
>
> At his point in time, an appraisal of the status of the entire field of
> LENR would indicate to me that until the TIP2 comes out, there is nothing
> in the past 24 years which is relevant to explore - other than Mizuno. It
> is far and away the most important experiment in the field going back to
> 1989. If the DDL explains this reaction, then everything for the future is
> understood and we can write-off most of what happened from 1989-2013 as
> “chasing one’s tail” and measurement error (as far as the helium-4 is
> concerned). The new Mizuno work is that important.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[James Bowery]

The Biblical stuff has other venues.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Steve High 
wrote:

> Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
> could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
> posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
> ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
> folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
> on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
> different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
> excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
> turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
> wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
> validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
> with the dreaded gamma ray?
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> We are talking rational history here, right?
>>
>> Google hits for
>> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>>
>> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>>
>> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad
>> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer
>> is basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
>> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in
>>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>>>
>>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or
>>> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>>>
>>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.

 As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
 Are these passages from the Mahabharata?



 Jojo


>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Steve High]

Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating
could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout
posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting
ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned
folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion
on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a
different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic
excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that
turn into muons that go on to promote  proton-proton interactions. I am
wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or
validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal
with the dreaded gamma ray?


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> We are talking rational history here, right?
>
> Google hits for
> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3
>
> "historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000
>
> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad Gita,
> "do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer is
> basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
> believing it, so they don't rock that boat.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in his
>> previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>>
>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or do
>> you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>>
>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>>>
>>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.
>>> Are these passages from the Mahabharata?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jojo
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

In general- the conclusion is that DDLs should operate to enhance fusion due to 
proximity effects, would only be valid if they formed as molecular pairs 
correct? Apparently, since we do not see gammas which would indicate fusion, 
the DDL does not form as pairs, and is only an atomic species which is 
relatively neutral (no net charge). 

 

Two DDDLs would therefore be less likely to fuse than a deuterium molecule, 
since the electrons are so tightly bound and are now relativistic, which 
although that velocity raises the mass – it severely reduces the time constant 
(should there be something equivalent to a Lawson criteria involved, where the 
“confinement time” only relates to the time when a single electron is a correct 
position and the other electron is also in the correct 180 degree shift).

 

As you mention there is little possibility of actual charge screening, as with 
negatively charged muons, which are slow comparatively, since the DDL are not 
charged; but we can agree that if DDL could form as molecules, then especially 
DT fusion would be certainly be likely, since the threshold is so low but only 
if one electron is lost an not the other.

 

Aside from that – the main problem I have with Mizuno’s new work in particular 
is what you suggested earlier – how can DDLs, with high IP, show up as mass-2 
in a mass spec? 

 

By focusing on that one issue - there is actually an emerging answer, but it 
needs more vetting - with input from Clean Planet, if they will provide it. 

 

At his point in time, an appraisal of the status of the entire field of LENR 
would indicate to me that until the TIP2 comes out, there is nothing in the 
past 24 years which is relevant to explore - other than Mizuno. It is far and 
away the most important experiment in the field going back to 1989. If the DDL 
explains this reaction, then everything for the future is understood and we can 
write-off most of what happened from 1989-2013 as “chasing one’s tail” and 
measurement error (as far as the helium-4 is concerned). The new Mizuno work is 
that important.

 

Jones

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

I don't understand the basis for this "conclusion".  It is well known that
muons catalyze fusion to a reasonably high rate and that the primary reason
is Coulombic screening to a much smaller inter-nuclear separation due to
the fact that the muon orbital radius is so much smaller than the electron
orbital radius.  We also know that DDL state hydrogen (if it exists) would
have a much smaller orbital radius than that of the muonic orbital.  Thus,
a DDL state hydrogen will be screened to much closer separation than a
muonic pair and would be more likely to fuse with another like DDL hydrogen
than a muonic isotope (but it doesn't have a catalytic action like the
muon).  If a DDL molecule of HH, HD, DD, etc forms, fusion is highly
probable.

If we presume that the f/H Mills' states form, it is a separate question
whether these atoms will fuse because the intermediate f/H radii are not as
small as the ~1/137 DDL state.  However, if you have an engine that can
crank the atoms into the f/H states, could not that same engine keep
ratcheting the atoms down in fraction/size toward that ultimate DDL state?
 The NAE (engine) that Storms proposes, would be a match made in heaven for
this type of ratcheting down in size.  Further, because the atoms would be
part of a multi-H chain, the formation of the molecular species is highly
likely and the molecules could be ratcheted down in fraction in lock step
with the assembly radiating away the energy at each step.

It is interesting that the Dirac equation doesn't seem to predict the
intermediate f/H eigenvalues that Mills predicts.  One interesting thought
is that the intermediate f/H states may only be a property of the
fractional molecular form.  I have not seen that anyone has calculated the
eigenvalues of the more complicated 4-body problem of molecular H from a
Dirac-like formulation.  The calculation would have to be formulated
without simplifying assumptions and then the eigenvalues would have to be
calculated without simplifications that could obscure unexpected states.
 This would probably best be tested by using a computer to evaluate the
solution space numerically without simplifying assumptions.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Jones, do you know what they said about the possible reactions in the ref
> 7 document noted above?  Their comments may be of interest to LENR as well
> as dark matter.
>
>
>
> The unavoidable conclusion, whether they like it or not, has to be that
> the DDL does not lead to fusion, but can lead to thermal gain.
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

We are talking rational history here, right?

Google hits for
"historicity of Bhagavad Gita"  :  3

"historicity of Jesus"  :  about 214,000

Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad Gita,
"do you really believe these are historical accounts"?  Their answer is
basically no, it's just something they believe in.  They were raised
believing it, so they don't rock that boat.




On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in his
> previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>
> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or do
> you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>
>
> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>>
>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.  Are
>> these passages from the Mahabharata?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

That isn't fair because... he said he wouldn't respond any more on this
subject.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:24 AM,  wrote:

>  I'll try one more time although there is little hope for one as
> radicalised as you. Take a lesson from the high priests who would not
> believe Jesus' message even when he rose from the dead but would rather
> bribe the guards to stop others believing the truth.  Don't try to destroy
> evidence like them, but appreciate and love it - when enough of it is
> collated and weighed, it must lead to the truth and maybe in an unexpected
> direction.
>
> What happened about a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe made
> in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago"? Did that turn out to be a YEC
> legend with no foundation in truth? (Often when you actually chase up
> something like this it turns out to be the case or has a very prosaic
> explanation!)
>
>
> On 16/08/2014 8:40 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
>
> Radionucleotide dating, whatever radionucleotides are being used is
> inherently based on assumptions.  If any of the assumptions do not hold up,
> the method is totally useless.
>
> But the assumptions do hold up and extremely well as the evidence proves!
>
>  Assumption #1:  That the ratio of the 2 isotopes is the same in the past
> as it is in the present.  In Carbon Dating for instance - the ratio of C14
> to C12 is assumed to be the same today as it was thousands of years ago. ...
>
> You obviously did not read what I wrote or take one look at the reference
> 
> I gave. The whole idea of the *calibration* is that you do *not assume*
> that the ratio thousands of years ago was the same as today.  If you made
> that assumption there would be no wiggles in the line.  The wiggles in the
> line are the variations in this C14 to C12 ratio going back tens of
> thousands of years.  Take a look at these wiggles
> 
> in the ratio in more recent data where the true age can be determined
> pretty much to the exact year.
>
> Characteristic "wiggles" with periods of order decades were first noted
> about 1967 and since then have become a dating method in their own right.
> When a set of measurements representing some decades can be made on a
> sample such as coral, then the pattern of wiggles each side of a perfect
> exponential decay can be matched with the wiggles in the calibration curve
> to allow accurate dating of the sample even in the presence of overall
> contamination or background.  A bit like matching tree ring variations - to
> anchor an otherwise floating chronology.
>
>  Well, we can not categorically say that for sure.  New C14 is constantly
> being created by various natural processes present in our Earth.  How can
> we be confident that we totally understand those processes...
>
> We don't have to understand those processes. The method is empirical and
> is can be *calibrated* from other processes that we do understand or can
> measure in the laboratory.
>
>
>  Assumption #2:  That the rate of radionucleotide decay is constant.  I
> think is is safe to say at our present knowledge that this may not be
> true.  There is quite compelling evidence that this is not true.
>
> Again for carbon dating it is irrelevant whether the decay rate is
> constant or not because we can calibrate any variation out of it.  The
> variations that have been noted are also extremely small (~0.1%) and do not
> seem to occur for the majority of elements. They are also of an AC nature
> (ie wiggles) and do not make any difference to a long term average
> measurement.  All indications from ancient experimental data (eg from
> distant astronomical sources that can be dated from their distance, or
> natural events such as the Oklo natural fission reactor that occurred a
> very long time ago) are that the decay rate has been constant within
> measurement error.
>
>
>  Assumption #3:  That there is no processes that may preferentially add
> one isotope over another.  Like I said, there are many natural processes
> that add C14 preferentially over C12.  This plays havoc on our instruments
> and produces inherently unreliable results.  How else could one lab produce
> a date of 300,000+ years while another working on the same sample produce a
> date of 100,000+ years.  We say that we should throw away the outliers and
> take the mean.  But isn't it true that an outlier with an error this big is
> already reason enough to suspect the technique?
>
> This may be true for some ancient artefacts that we would like to date
> when you really don't know if a passing camel might have spat on it or a
> bird shat on it.  But when you can choose your sample from a protected
> environment like deep in a stalactite or a coral bed, then there is really
> nothing to "play havoc on our instruments and produce inherently
> unreliable results".  How else could many sci

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[jwinter]

I'll try one more time although there is little hope for one as 
radicalised as you. Take a lesson from the high priests who would not 
believe Jesus' message even when he rose from the dead but would rather 
bribe the guards to stop others believing the truth.  Don't try to 
destroy evidence like them, but appreciate and love it - when enough of 
it is collated and weighed, it must lead to the truth and maybe in an 
unexpected direction.


What happened about a reference to the "piece of leather from a shoe 
made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago"? Did that turn out to be 
a YEC legend with no foundation in truth? (Often when you actually chase 
up something like this it turns out to be the case or has a very prosaic 
explanation!)


On 16/08/2014 8:40 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
Radionucleotide dating, whatever radionucleotides are being used is 
inherently based on assumptions.  If any of the assumptions do not 
hold up, the method is totally useless.

But the assumptions do hold up and extremely well as the evidence proves!

Assumption #1:  That the ratio of the 2 isotopes is the same in the 
past as it is in the present.  In Carbon Dating for instance - the 
ratio of C14 to C12 is assumed to be the same today as it was 
thousands of years ago. ...
You obviously did not read what I wrote or take one look at the 
reference 
 
I gave. The whole idea of the *calibration* is that you do *not assume* 
that the ratio thousands of years ago was the same as today.  If you 
made that assumption there would be no wiggles in the line.  The wiggles 
in the line are the variations in this C14 to C12 ratio going back tens 
of thousands of years.  Take a look at these wiggles 
 
in the ratio in more recent data where the true age can be determined 
pretty much to the exact year.


Characteristic "wiggles" with periods of order decades were first noted 
about 1967 and since then have become a dating method in their own 
right. When a set of measurements representing some decades can be made 
on a sample such as coral, then the pattern of wiggles each side of a 
perfect exponential decay can be matched with the wiggles in the 
calibration curve to allow accurate dating of the sample even in the 
presence of overall contamination or background.  A bit like matching 
tree ring variations - to anchor an otherwise floating chronology.


Well, we can not categorically say that for sure.  New C14 is 
constantly being created by various natural processes present in our 
Earth.  How can we be confident that we totally understand those 
processes...
We don't have to understand those processes. The method is empirical and 
is can be *calibrated* from other processes that we do understand or can 
measure in the laboratory.


Assumption #2:  That the rate of radionucleotide decay is constant.  I 
think is is safe to say at our present knowledge that this may not be 
true.  There is quite compelling evidence that this is not true.
Again for carbon dating it is irrelevant whether the decay rate is 
constant or not because we can calibrate any variation out of it. The 
variations that have been noted are also extremely small (~0.1%) and do 
not seem to occur for the majority of elements. They are also of an AC 
nature (ie wiggles) and do not make any difference to a long term 
average measurement.  All indications from ancient experimental data (eg 
from distant astronomical sources that can be dated from their distance, 
or natural events such as the Oklo natural fission reactor that occurred 
a very long time ago) are that the decay rate has been constant within 
measurement error.


Assumption #3:  That there is no processes that may preferentially add 
one isotope over another.  Like I said, there are many natural 
processes that add C14 preferentially over C12.  This plays havoc on 
our instruments and produces inherently unreliable results.  How else 
could one lab produce a date of 300,000+ years while another working 
on the same sample produce a date of 100,000+ years.  We say that we 
should throw away the outliers and take the mean.  But isn't it true 
that an outlier with an error this big is already reason enough to 
suspect the technique?
This may be true for some ancient artefacts that we would like to date 
when you really don't know if a passing camel might have spat on it or a 
bird shat on it.  But when you can choose your sample from a protected 
environment like deep in a stalactite or a coral bed, then there is 
really nothing to "play havoc on our instruments and produce inherently 
unreliable results". How else could many scientists working 
independently in widely varying fields all get points that fall smack on 
the same line, complete with the same wiggles that have become as 
recognisable as tree rings!?


Look at the plotted points in figure 1 of 

Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL

[Kevin O'Malley]

Uhh, didn't you say you weren't going to comment any more on this subject
lest you get all riled up???


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jojo Iznart  wrote:

>  I am not familiar with the Bhagava Gita so I will not comment on this.
> But I only have one question.  How do you know it was Jesus?  Does the text
> specifically mention the name Jesus?
>
> Regarding Jesus as a Carpenter ... Don't get me wrong.  I am not arguing
> that Jesus was not a carpenter.  It is likely that he was.  What I'm simply
> saying is that there is a chance he may not have been.  Jesus did not have
> his own family to feed.  He was not married unless you want to believe Dan
> Brown.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 12:32 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
>
> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in his
> previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna.
>
> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or do
> you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching?
>
>
> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart :
>
>>  I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult.
>>
>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me.  Are
>> these passages from the Mahabharata?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>