Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) ... > This would be quite difficult to do at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
I have to admit, despite _wanting_ an _easier_ way to adopt as working hypothesis Mills's theory -- which I'm convinced is quite plausible -- than Robin's extrapolations beyond where Mills himself will go with his theory; Jones Beene is no help in fulfilling my desire to avoid delving into Robin's extrapolations of a theory with which I am not yet competent. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > >> 1)no gamma radiation is detected >> > True. > > > >> 2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion >> without gammas >> > Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof. > Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion is based on theory. > Experiments trump theory. > > > >> 3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, >> yet the proponent does not detect tritium or He3 >> > Evidently that is not true. That is to say, the experimental evidence says > that is not true. > > > >> 4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them >> show a helium-to-heat correlation. >> > No one has looked for helium in one of these experiments, as far as I > know. I do not know of any published papers, and I am pretty familiar with > the literature. > > > >> 5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere >> >> 6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex >> >> 7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex >> > Yes of course, but as I pointed out previously, the rate of diffusion is > known and Miles measured it and confirmed it. > > > >> 8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower >> than the amount of helium in the atmosphere >> > Yes, and the blank experiments proved that is true, beyond question. You > say it may be a problem but you are flat out wrong. You have not shown why > it might be a problem. You might as well claim there can be no experiments > in vacuum here on earth because we are surrounded by air. There is no > question helium is excluded from the cells, except for 4 ppb background. > Since that background is consistent we can be sure it does not explain > Miles' results. > > > >> It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive >> theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above . . . >> > It is quite comprehensible to Miles, to Storms, me and many others. You > disagree, but you have no logical or technical justification. The fact that > the background is lower than atmosphere is irrelevant. > > > >> , when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium . . . >> > > That is not the only contrary evidence, as I am sure you know. There have > been other experiments that achieved much higher concentrations, including > concentrations above atmosphere (McKubre). Still others that started off at > atmospheric concentration, deliberately. > > Since you know these facts as well as I do, you are being intellectually > dishonest by pretending there is only "one contrary evidence." You are > being childish, and you are not fooling anyone. This is inappropriate for > this forum. We acknowledge what the literature claims. We don't have to > agree, but we do not pretend that claims do not exist. You have read this > other literature. Perhaps you have reason to disbelieve McKubre and the > ENEA along with Miles, but please do not pretend you are ignorant or that > their papers do not exist. > > > >> , hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly >> being detected by machines which remain unidentified. >> > > They are identified in the literature and in the Hoffman book, as I am > sure you know. The laboratories describe them in great detail. Perhaps you > will refuse to read the literature and the Hoffman book. However, just > because you will not look at something, that does not make it magically > vanish. That is a tiresome bad habit of the so-called "skeptics." Don't > stoop to it. > > (People who seriously believe that the literature does not exist because > they refuse to look at it lack what psychologists call "object permanence" > which most children acquire at 3 months.) > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:It's not dark matter, it's LENR
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-particle-detector-hints-dark-space.html Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space *As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons, the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from dark matter collisions would be negligible. However, positrons and antiprotons are much rarer in the universe; any detection of these particles above the very small expected background would likely come from a new source. The features of this excess—and in particular its onset, maximum position, and offset—will help scientists determine whether positrons arise from astrophysical sources such as pulsars, or from dark matter*. Dark matter is not producing these positrons, it's LENR. Proton rich fusion of hydrogen with interstellar nanoparticles will generate loads of positrons. This together with a 400% excess of XUV radiation points to a likely footprint of cosmological LENR. Until science recognizes LENR, they will be chasing their tails in trying to explain these LENR footprints..
[Vo]:
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-particle-detector-hints-dark-space.html Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space *As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons, the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from dark matter collisions would be negligible. However, positrons and antiprotons are much rarer in the universe; any detection of these particles above the very small expected background would likely come from a new source. The features of this excess—and in particular its onset, maximum position, and offset—will help scientists determine whether positrons arise from astrophysical sources such as pulsars, or from dark matter*. Dark matter is not producing these positrons, it's LENR. Proton rich fusion of hydrogen with interstellar nanoparticles will generate loads of positrons. This together with a 400% excess of XUV radiation points to a likely footprint of cosmological LENR. Until science recognizes LENR, they will be chasing their tails in trying to explain these LENR footprints..
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene wrote: > 1)no gamma radiation is detected > True. > 2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion > without gammas > Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof. Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion is based on theory. Experiments trump theory. > 3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, yet > the proponent does not detect tritium or He3 > Evidently that is not true. That is to say, the experimental evidence says that is not true. > 4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them show > a helium-to-heat correlation. > No one has looked for helium in one of these experiments, as far as I know. I do not know of any published papers, and I am pretty familiar with the literature. > 5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere > > 6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex > > 7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex > Yes of course, but as I pointed out previously, the rate of diffusion is known and Miles measured it and confirmed it. > 8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower > than the amount of helium in the atmosphere > Yes, and the blank experiments proved that is true, beyond question. You say it may be a problem but you are flat out wrong. You have not shown why it might be a problem. You might as well claim there can be no experiments in vacuum here on earth because we are surrounded by air. There is no question helium is excluded from the cells, except for 4 ppb background. Since that background is consistent we can be sure it does not explain Miles' results. > It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive > theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above . . . > It is quite comprehensible to Miles, to Storms, me and many others. You disagree, but you have no logical or technical justification. The fact that the background is lower than atmosphere is irrelevant. > , when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium . . . > That is not the only contrary evidence, as I am sure you know. There have been other experiments that achieved much higher concentrations, including concentrations above atmosphere (McKubre). Still others that started off at atmospheric concentration, deliberately. Since you know these facts as well as I do, you are being intellectually dishonest by pretending there is only "one contrary evidence." You are being childish, and you are not fooling anyone. This is inappropriate for this forum. We acknowledge what the literature claims. We don't have to agree, but we do not pretend that claims do not exist. You have read this other literature. Perhaps you have reason to disbelieve McKubre and the ENEA along with Miles, but please do not pretend you are ignorant or that their papers do not exist. > , hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly being > detected by machines which remain unidentified. > They are identified in the literature and in the Hoffman book, as I am sure you know. The laboratories describe them in great detail. Perhaps you will refuse to read the literature and the Hoffman book. However, just because you will not look at something, that does not make it magically vanish. That is a tiresome bad habit of the so-called "skeptics." Don't stoop to it. (People who seriously believe that the literature does not exist because they refuse to look at it lack what psychologists call "object permanence" which most children acquire at 3 months.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:gossip from "Paul", at E-Cat world
In reply to Foks0904 .'s message of Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:36:55 -0400: Hi, >It's findings like this that have lead some people to the same conclusion: >Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of >sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the "F&P Heat Effect" >(aka radiationless cold fusion) w/ whatever unusual hot fusion effect is >being produced (i.e. like Axil linking LeClair's work to cold fusion, which >is totally off-base, unless one is ready, at this early juncture, to adopt >wholesale his hyper-speculative "whispering quantum hall magic gamma >shield" hypothesis), perhaps by small-scale fracto-fusion, Casimir >forces, & cavitation, when conditions are right, and so on. That's just >spit-balling though, because as we know the neutron-to-tritium ratio is not >reflective of known hot fusion reactions in the slightest, so whatever is >producing the tritium has got to be a strange reaction pathway as well, >because its certainly not commensurate with the excess heat either. This is >one of those "mysteries" that I have seen no theory adequately answer as of >yet. [snip] If you are fissioning, and you need to get rid of neutrons (because heavier elements have an excess of neutrons compared to light elements), then you might create Tritium rather than free neutrons, because the high neutron to proton ratio of Tritium allows you to get rid of neutrons, while it is energetically more favourable to produce Tritium than to produce free neutrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From: Jed Rothwell Every "fact" you have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out wrong. Really. Here are the most important facts in this discussion, and none of them is wrong. 1)no gamma radiation is detected 2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion without gammas 3)the two preferred channels for D+D fusion are tritium and He3, yet the proponent does not detect tritium or He3 4)there are megajoule cold-fusion experiments, but none of them show a helium-to-heat correlation. 5)There are 5 ppm helium in the atmosphere 6)Electrolysis cells are made of Pyrex 7)Helium diffuses into Pyrex 8)The amount of helium claimed to be detected is 500 times lower than the amount of helium in the atmosphere It is almost incomprehensible how one can rationally build a cohesive theory of D+D fusion based on the reality of these facts above, when the only contrary evidence is part per billion of helium, hundreds of times less than in the atmosphere, which is supposedly being detected by machines which remain unidentified.
RE: [Vo]:Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
If this phenomenon is really true, it suggests a number of questions, e.g. : A reactionless thrust means that the power output could be very large since power = thrust * speed, and if the speed is high so is the power, so COP could be very big. Does the RF power needed increase as the speed increases? Speed with respect to what -- the ether? It would be trivial to make a self sustaining energy source if one of these was spinning or moving very fastly driving a generator for its own RF source. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device FYI: I know this kind of tech has been discussed by the Collective before, but here's some recent results from NASA. http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustPro ductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf Excerpt from Abstract: "During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts. Testing was performed on a lowthrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level. Test campaign results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma." -mark iverson --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene wrote: > 1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to > study helium, or they may not have. > > No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent > opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they had an > excellent opportunity to report helium-to-heat ratio. > That is incorrect. I do not know whether this equipment could have been adapted for a helium study. Most cells cannot, including some of the really good ones from McKubre. You have to have very tightly closed cells with the best Swagelok connectors. OR you have to have an open cell like the one Miles used, which was self-purging. An experiment has to be designed from the ground up to contain the helium and then measure it. That can interfere with other design goals. I do not know whether these experiments were designed for helium studies. Just looking at the schematics, I do not see an on-line mass spec connection, and there are too many other things poking into the cell. It is difficult to draw a sample after the test. An on-line connection is better. Perhaps this schematic is incomplete. Perhaps they did a helium study with some other configuration. Offhand, this one does not seem promising, but I cannot judge. > 2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have. > > The rational assumption, given the scientific method, can only be that did > the study, but did not publish the results. No that is not rational. It is jumping to a conclusion about equipment you know nothing about. > 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, > or it might be negative. > > No. If it was positive – since they were in desperate need of future > funding > at the time – it would have been published. They had tons of funding. They were rolling in money. They published practically nothing. I was told this is because their findings were considered intellectual property. > In fact they were closed down later. In a fight over the intellectual property. Not because they ran out of money. Toyota has billions and billions of dollars. > That no such study was published is indicative of the lack of helium . . . There are countless details about this research which were never published. I learned about some of important details from Martin, mainly about materials. They have not been revealed as far as I know. I do not know the actual details, but I know what sort of things were discovered about the palladium. I know that it has all been kept under wraps. > We have no evidence for or against any of these, but > regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken. > > No - he was not necessarily mistaken. Who said he was mistaken? Not me. Well it sure sounds like you are saying that! Look at the title of this thread. You sure as heck do not have any technical justification for any of your assertions. Every "fact"you have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out wrong. For example, your belief that the mass spectrometers in these studies are not capable of measuring ppb levels of helium is completely wrong. > Miles was led to believe that he had a correlation of heat to helium based > on milliwatt heat level experiments. If that information was correct, it > only applies to milliwatt level experiments. I doubt it. Anyway, 500 mW is pretty close to a watt. I doubt there is another mechanism that clicks in at 1 W, or 10 W. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
This is absurd spin by Rothwell, but I will waste the time with another rebuttal, so that the archive, at least, will include some bit of sanity on this subject. Of course we already know that JR made the thousand-fold mistake in what he reported as the level of ambient helium, so his judgment is in question on everything else. BTW - this needs to be corrected in the record as well even if he has reedited that paper. I’m not sure he ever acknowledged that he made the egregious error. Jed – for the record there are 5 ppm of helium in the atmosphere and not 5 ppb as you reported in the original Miles paper, along with other errors. Yes I did read it – so if you have made the correction already, do not pretend that you were correct all along. From: Jed Rothwell 1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium, or they may not have. No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they had an excellent opportunity to report helium-to-heat ratio. 2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have. The rational assumption, given the scientific method, can only be that did the study, but did not publish the results. To say otherwise, as Rothwell implies, assumes that they were ignorant of proper methodology, and we know that they were not. 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, or it might be negative. No. If it was positive – since they were in desperate need of future funding at the time – it would have been published. In fact they were closed down later. That no such study was published is indicative of the lack of helium, at least the lack of helium at anything capable of explaining megajoules. This would indicate to potential funders that they did not understand the reaction, which is true. They did not understand that helium could appear as a low probability QM effect but that other process could provide the low COP which they saw. We have no evidence for or against any of these, but regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken. No - he was not necessarily mistaken. Who said he was mistaken? Not me. Once again, you are not reading the earlier posts, or else you are putting a false spin on them to further your misguided agenda. Miles was led to believe that he had a correlation of heat to helium based on milliwatt heat level experiments. If that information was correct, it only applies to milliwatt level experiments. Several times it has been stated that QM tunneling could easily operate at milliwatt levels - to provide trace helium at the ppb level. However, QM is low probability and does not scale to watt level. At the megajoule level of Roulette/Pons, Mizuno or anyone else - there has never been a report of helium commensurate with heat. Therefore, the only scientifically justified conclusion that we can reach from Miles work is that milliwatt level fusion has been shown by him to have helium output at the ppb level - which could be commensurate with fusion – so long as one believes this is possible to measure this accurately - with the instrumentation used. If you buy the conclusion that ppb instrumentation was available to do this, then in my opinion, the most that you can say is that it happens at milliwatt levels. The fact remains – and I hope is not in dispute - there have been megajoule level experiments; and yet NONE of them has shown helium commensurate with thermal output - so there is no scientific justification for assuming that QM reactions are scalable upwards in LENR, when we know for certain that in other fields, QM does not scale upwards. Hope this helps to correct the record Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's >site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com This is a moderated group, Mills himself follows it and responds to questions. I would characterize it more as a "fan club". I get the impression that if the question is too critical, Mills will just refer to a section of his book. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
I did not fully describe Beene's argument. There are three postulates, not two: 1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium, or they may not have. 2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have. 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, or it might be negative. We have no evidence for or against any of these, but regardless of the truth value, together they prove: Miles was mistaken. Any combination proves Miles was mistaken, even 'true, false, false' or 'false, false, false.' It is a powerful argument! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
there is even more recent information on that test http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive.html and previous http://nextbigfuture.com/search/label/emdrive read also wired answer to some critics http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive Shawyer give more on his version http://emdrive.com/ http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf http://emdrive.com/faq.html forget the theories, there are 4 (relativity with Shwayer, maxwell QM for chinese, Fette which is disproven experimentally, and nasa idea of quantum plasma)... the main reason to take those test seriously is that all armchair artifacts have been taken seriously and mitigated. moreover the effect happens only at resonance, which eliminate nearly all artifact claims. in the paper of nasa there is the most important comment lost at the end, that it did not work when removing some dielectric (science publication by footnotes like for HTSC http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf ) the annoying facts is that, even when accounting for power difference, the "efficiency" of fetta, null fetta, and shwyer reactors are very different... maybe teh Q factor... even shawayer reactor when tested by yang Juan did not exhibit monotonic power to thrust relation... more work to do to confirm it. I have a scoop.it used as a link bin, if you want to dig http://www.scoop.it/t/emdrive a real blackswan technology, unlike LENR which is a whiteswan covered with soot. 2014-09-19 17:55 GMT+02:00 MarkI-ZeroPoint : > FYI: > > I know this kind of tech has been discussed by the Collective before, but > here’s some recent results from NASA… > > > http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf > > > > Excerpt from Abstract: > > “During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 > micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article > excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the > subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately > 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test > article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts. > Testing was performed on a lowthrust torsion pendulum that is > capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level. > Test campaign results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster > design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a > force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic > phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction > with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.” > > > > -mark iverson > > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Axil Axil wrote: > Where are the experimentally based technical points that will convince > Jones to change his opinions? > The papers by Miles might convince him, but evidently he has not read them. I say that because he keeps making assertions that contradict those papers. A person cannot be convinced by papers he has not read. If the papers by Miles do not convince him then I would say the discussion is closed. We have to agree to disagree. I have no other evidence to present. His most recent argument falls outside the bounds of conventional debate. I find it impossible to parse. It is: "The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium, or they may not have. They may or may not have done a study. So that proves Miles is wrong." Two unknowns magically prove an assertion they have no connection to. Even if you knew the truth value of both (which we do not) it would tell you nothing about the conclusion. I guess that is New Age reasoning. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Hear yourself foks: Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent "LOL" and winning-is-everything attitude, will you please? Please raise the level of your rhetoric. Where are the experimentally based technical points that will convince Jones to change his opinions? I accept criticism based of experimental evidence not character assassination. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > If you go out of your way to create an echo chamber by chasing off people > who disagree with you, you're well on your way to achieving that -- a forum > equivalent of an intellectual mono-culture. Shame on you, Axil, seriously. > I disagree with some of you, occasionally engage in snarky > back-and-fourths, and that means I'm on some mission to perform "hatchet > jobs" on each and every one of you? You are delusional at best. > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn. >> >> >> From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own >> "reality tunnels", and diversity is of course important to any evolving >> ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking >> processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a >> learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down, >> the system breaks down. >> >> Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a "true believer" >> in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work) >> >> Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for >> our own ideas or at least his invalid impressions of them ( aka >> "reality tunnels") and won't give us the room or allow us to develop >> and to hold our own beliefs. >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >>> *From:* Foks0904 >>> >>> >>> >>> And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you >>> shill for Mill's work) >>> >>> >>> >>> You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what >>> you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find somewhere else to troll. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jones >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Axil, He says he is young, which is obvious … so we could cut him some slack on immaturity – if … that is, he were not trying to lecture others as if he had a unique skill set for this field … or … if he had made any contribution here. I looked back through the archives and cannot find a single thread where Foks0904 has made an intelligent contribution, but please let me know if I have missed anything since I’m not going to waste any more time on a troll. My real problem with his onscreen demeanor is the audacity of accusing others of childishness, when he is the real child, or “faith-based” belief, when that is all he has to offer, and especially not reading the posts that he wants to be heard on – what a hypocrite ! And - I do not mind anyone posting under a screen name, up to the point they start to become a nuisance, troll, hypocrite and non-contributor. He appears to be 4 for 4 on that list. From: Axil Axil Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn. From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own "reality tunnels", and diversity is of course important to any evolving ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down, the system breaks down.
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
If you go out of your way to create an echo chamber by chasing off people who disagree with you, you're well on your way to achieving that -- a forum equivalent of an intellectual mono-culture. Shame on you, Axil, seriously. I disagree with some of you, occasionally engage in snarky back-and-fourths, and that means I'm on some mission to perform "hatchet jobs" on each and every one of you? You are delusional at best. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn. > > From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own > "reality tunnels", and diversity is of course important to any evolving > ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking > processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a > learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down, > the system breaks down. > > Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a "true believer" > in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work) > > Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for > our own ideas or at least his invalid impressions of them ( aka > "reality tunnels") and won't give us the room or allow us to develop and > to hold our own beliefs. > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Foks0904 >> >> >> >> And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you >> shill for Mill's work) >> >> >> >> You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what >> you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. >> >> >> >> Please find somewhere else to troll. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Are you serious? What a joke. Get a thicker skin Axil. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn. > > From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own > "reality tunnels", and diversity is of course important to any evolving > ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking > processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a > learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down, > the system breaks down. > > Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a "true believer" > in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work) > > Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for > our own ideas or at least his invalid impressions of them ( aka > "reality tunnels") and won't give us the room or allow us to develop and > to hold our own beliefs. > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> *From:* Foks0904 >> >> >> >> And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you >> shill for Mill's work) >> >> >> >> You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what >> you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. >> >> >> >> Please find somewhere else to troll. >> >> >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
This whole thread began because you misunderstood something you read (taken & posted form from a private forum you're not even a part of) and blew it out of proportion. You're the one with a chip on your shoulder -- that's not my problem. Spare me the self-righteous indignation. Name call and be condescending if you so choose. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you > shill for Mill's work) > > > > You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you > read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. > > > > Please find somewhere else to troll. > > > > Jones > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn. From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own "reality tunnels", and diversity is of course important to any evolving ecology, everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking processes, and less dogmatic because as a society/culture we are a learning/information driven open system. When communication breaks down, the system breaks down. Now Foks0904 states on jones: And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work) Foks wants us to conform to his ideas and does not allow us the room for our own ideas or at least his invalid impressions of them ( aka "reality tunnels") and won't give us the room or allow us to develop and to hold our own beliefs. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you > shill for Mill's work) > > > > You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you > read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. > > > > Please find somewhere else to troll. > > > > Jones > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From: Foks0904 And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work) You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics. Please find somewhere else to troll. Jones
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From: Foks0904 Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive your own childishness. And this kind of talk from you to me – impugning the motives of anyone who does not follow the anti-science rhetoric which your are dishing out here - is that indicative of your adult status? I’ll say it again, since it must not have registered before – I’m not interested in anything other than promoting LENR in a logical, scientific and valid way. This is science-based, and how you can equate that with childishness, when it does not agree with you, makes me think that you belong somewhere else where fan-boy enthusiasm is appreciated. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how to act like more of an adult than you. Really? If you truly believe that your prior remarks are not inciting the kind of response which you will always receive on any forum - when you go that far - then you are a long way from becoming a rational adult – no matter what your age. BTW – what is your name? Jones
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
And by the way if I was a "true believer" in any theory (like how you shill for Mill's work), I wouldn't go out of my way to interview people in the field with widely differing opinions on the matter at hand (i.e. Ahern vs. Storms). I have no pet theory, I make no firm conclusions, I have only hunches based on actual, tangible evidence: such as the well-vetted heat/helium work. You have one experiment from Mizuno and a bunch of ambiguous in-house studies from Mills. Mills has totally reformulated QM to fit his pet-view of the world, which you seem to support, and I'm the one going out on a limb? Please don't make me laugh. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This has got to be a joke, right? > > > > Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my > day. > > > > In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific > conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium *cannot* be > responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist > - what difference does logic and factuality make? > > > > This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can. > However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are > spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear > physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons > to helium-4. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > I appreciate & respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will > reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on > a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the > same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium > correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are > merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just > classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between > "believers" in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or > theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The > arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to > task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just > trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying > to "blow the lid off" (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM > distinction (as Jed & Mel have made abundantly clear). "Disbelievers" in > heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a "faith-based" argument > in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power > than Miles . . . > > > > Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. > > > > I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect > helium. Most cells are not. > > > > - Jed > > > > >
Re: ERE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell > [Snip] evasive double talk > Don't be obnoxious. I never evade anything. > We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who > had > access to MS not test at all? > I am not in contact with anyone who was there anymore. Martin was my main contact. Most of what I learned was from the papers. I never met the two Roulettes. They kept this sort of detail secret. A trade secret, I suppose. > * How do you know they did not test? I have no idea whether they did > or not. > > Then if you had the opportunity, and did not ask, then are you not > extraordinarily gullible for not inquiring? What makes you think I had the opportunity? They did not even give us a tour of the lab during the conference. > We would not be having this discussion otherwise. > We do not need to have this discussion. This is irrelevant. It has no bearing on Miles, and it does not draw into question his results, or the ENEA's, or any other helium result. You are saying: "a laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium but they may not have done that study, so that proves Miles was wrong." That is illogical. Also, since you have no idea whether they had an opportunity for whether they did the study, the assertion is a flat out ridiculous speculation. DOH! That is precisely why they should have tested - as they would not need > ppb levels – which are in fact not obtainable, even today ! > Maybe they did test. I don't know and neither do you. What is your point? > The fact that they did not publish, but should have tested and had every > opportunity to test - will lead even the mildest skeptic to the most likely > conclusion – which is that they did test, they found the helium results > unsatisfactory, and they declined to publish. > Why on earth would anyone reach that conclusion!?! This was a commercial enterprise. If they discovered a key fact about cold fusion why would they publish it? They published practically nothing. They shut down the whole program. As far as I know, they shut it down because of greed and politics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent "LOL" and winning-is-everything attitude, will you please? On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This has got to be a joke, right? > > > > Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my > day. > > > > In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific > conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium *cannot* be > responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist > - what difference does logic and factuality make? > > > > This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can. > However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are > spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear > physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons > to helium-4. > > > > Jones > > > > *From:* Foks0904 > > > > I appreciate & respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will > reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on > a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the > same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium > correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are > merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just > classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between > "believers" in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or > theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The > arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to > task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just > trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying > to "blow the lid off" (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM > distinction (as Jed & Mel have made abundantly clear). "Disbelievers" in > heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a "faith-based" argument > in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > I wrote: > > > > In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power > than Miles . . . > > > > Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. > > > > I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect > helium. Most cells are not. > > > > - Jed > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
This has got to be a joke, right? Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my day. In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific conclusion other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium cannot be responsible for gain. But – if you are a true-believer and not a scientist - what difference does logic and factuality make? This is not to say that helium cannot appear with excess heat. It can. However, if we want to stay away from the faith-based nonsense you are spouting here, the only thing which we can be sure of, based on nuclear physics - is that the helium did not come from the fusion of two deuterons to helium-4. Jones From: Foks0904 I appreciate & respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between "believers" in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying to "blow the lid off" (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM distinction (as Jed & Mel have made abundantly clear). "Disbelievers" in heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a "faith-based" argument in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than Miles . . . Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect helium. Most cells are not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
I appreciate & respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium correlation in PdD (some direct replications of others while others are merely similar) goes beyond willful ignorance in my opinion. This is just classic pseudoskeptical logic being interjected into an argument between "believers" in hopes of making a case for an ego-driven-theory (or theories) that has very little connection to experimental reality.The arguments against the Miles work is nothing new, has never been brought to task in a peer review, or even quasi-peer reviewed, and Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) because he made a mistake by trying to "blow the lid off" (just like Krivit) with this red-herring PPB vs. PPM distinction (as Jed & Mel have made abundantly clear). "Disbelievers" in heat/helium are welcome to that opinion, but it is a "faith-based" argument in terms of the actual probabilities/percentages. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than >> Miles . . . >> > > Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. > > I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect > helium. Most cells are not. > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:Re: He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
James Bowery wrote: Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages
ERE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From: Jed Rothwell [Snip] evasive double talk We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had access to MS not test at all? * How do you know they did not test? I have no idea whether they did or not. Then if you had the opportunity, and did not ask, then are you not extraordinarily gullible for not inquiring? We would not be having this discussion otherwise. * * In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than Miles, and the cells were closed for 3 months, whereas Miles' was open and could only collect for an hour and 15 minutes. So if they collected and analyzed helium they would have found far more. They would not need parts per billion levels of precision. DOH! That is precisely why they should have tested - as they would not need ppb levels – which are in fact not obtainable, even today ! Geeze, are you so insulated from how the world works – that the implications of this lack of data from them are not obvious? The fact that they did not publish, but should have tested and had every opportunity to test - will lead even the mildest skeptic to the most likely conclusion – which is that they did test, they found the helium results unsatisfactory, and they declined to publish. QED <>
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
It may be possible to optimize the Ni/H reactor to transform most of its energy output to RF energy by adding NMR active elements into its structure. This RF perpulstion effect could make the Ni/H reactor a natural space drive engine for deep space exploration where the energy from the sun produced by solar cells is weak. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > FYI: > > I know this kind of tech has been discussed by the Collective before, but > here’s some recent results from NASA… > > > http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf > > > > Excerpt from Abstract: > > “During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 > micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article > excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the > subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately > 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test > article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts. > Testing was performed on a lowthrust torsion pendulum that is > capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level. > Test campaign results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster > design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a > force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic > phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction > with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.” > > > > -mark iverson > > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
I wrote: > In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than > Miles . . . > Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power. I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect helium. Most cells are not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene wrote: In many case we are talking about self-made gadgets to enrich the helium. > No, in every case I know of, enrichment was done by the mass spectroscopy experts themselves, with in house equipment. There are no self-made gadgets involved. Miles did nothing to the gas samples. He sent them out as collected. > Rothwell talks about 16 others besides Miles… > I did not mention the other studies. Storms lists them. You can read the papers describing many of them at LENR-CANR.org. Here is the mass spectrometer at the ENEA: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187#PhotosENEAFrascati It does not look cobbled together or self-made to me. > so which of them also has access to a putative ppb MS, and which has not > relied on enrichment? > Most of them do not need ppb level instruments. Most collect the gas for a longer duration than Miles, with a closed cell. That concentrates the helium more. I would not call that "enrichment" because it implies they took something away leaving helium. Miles had an open cell that can only collect a fixed amount of effluent gas, over a fixed time period. (1 hour 15 minutes). > Why does Rothwell not identify the manufacture of this magical MS device, > so we can cross-check with the published specs from the manufacturer ? > The literature published by Miles and by the labs describes all this in detail. Let me repeat this quote: "We completed 18 measurements of excess helium for experiments producing excess heat. These helium measurements were performed at three different laboratories: the University of Texas (References 14 and 15), Rockwell International (Reference 22), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (References 24, 25, and 31)." http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf See that document for refs. 14, 15, 22, 24, 25 and 31, which will lead you to still other references documenting the claims. See also the Hoffman book describing Rockwell's mass spectrometer. > Probably because he knows the published specs do not support ppb. > Beene has not read anything about the instruments at U. Texas, Rockwell, or the Bur. of Mines. If he had read something, he would not be asking me for information. Since he has read nothing, he knows nothing, and he has no basis for making these assertions. > We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had access to MS > not test at all? > How do you know they did not test? I have no idea whether they did or not. In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than Miles, and the cells were closed for 3 months, whereas Miles' was open and could only collect for an hour and 15 minutes. So if they collected and analyzed helium they would have found far more. They would not need parts per billion levels of precision. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:He4 Energy Totals Damning of Mills?
Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.? On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, wrote: > In reply to James Bowery's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:04:02 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >Is Mills measuring the p value of his hydrinos? > > > >I understand his reticence to measure fusion ash -- especially since > >tritium apparently got him into trouble with the pseudo-skeptics when he > >reported it. > > I think the highest he has seen is about 9-11 My memory is a bit > vague, and > this was all some time ago. The evidence was in the form of small > shoulders on > peaks in his graphs. Of late, he only talks about p = 4. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
[Vo]:Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device
FYI: I know this kind of tech has been discussed by the Collective before, but here's some recent results from NASA. http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustPro ductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf Excerpt from Abstract: "During the first (Cannae) portion of the campaign, approximately 40 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 935 megahertz and 28 watts. During the subsequent (tapered cavity) portion of the campaign, approximately 91 micronewtons of thrust were observed in an RF resonant cavity test article excited at approximately 1933 megahertz and 17 watts. Testing was performed on a lowthrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level. Test campaign results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma." -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From: Jed Rothwell * No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are talking about three of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U. Texas, Rockwell International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was stated by Miles, by me and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read nothing? Or does he think that world-class experts at leading labs do not know the characteristics of their own instruments In many case we are talking about self-made gadgets to enrich the helium. Rothwell talks about 16 others besides Miles… so which of them also has access to a putative ppb MS, and which has not relied on enrichment? Has Rothwell read nothing, or can he explain why these top labs cannot measure the mass of the proton and come up with the identical value? That would be an important ppb measurement - and yet they cannot do it. Apparently someone at one of these facilities, who may or may not speak for the Lab itself, apparently thinks he can measure ppb in a repeatable way for helium, without enrichment - but the proof is in the puddin’ and if they could do this, in a repeatable way - why can they not measure proton mass at greater than ppm? Why does Rothwell not identify the manufacture of this magical MS device, so we can cross-check with the published specs from the manufacturer ? Probably because he knows the published specs do not support ppb. This makes me think that this ppb nonsense is NOT something which we should be basing the future of the entire field on, when in fact neither of the top two “hero” efforts, in terms of net gain in megajoules – showed helium !! That’ right – neither of the hero results of the past 25 years of LENR showed helium. We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had access to MS not test at all? Or… heaven forbid, did they test and decline to publish, since the results did not meet expectations? It makes no sense that they would not test.
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
My sense is that the transmutation process is dependent on the geometry of the surface that the LENR reaction is produced by. There are many types of such surface geometries that are capable of producing the LENR effect and therefore there are many types of transmutation mechanisms possible among the various classes of LENR experiments. The false assumption that underlie this discussion is that LENR must always produce helium. This assumption may be valid in a particular narrow class of LENR experiments, by invalid in another class of experiments because of the geometric surface characteristics of the particular class of experiments. At the end of the day, LENR and its associated ash production is based on the particular geometry of the surface that is producing the ash. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > >> Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure >> there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are >> talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of >> this work was done a decade ago. >> > > I missed that gem. No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are > talking about three of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U. > Texas, Rockwell International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was > stated by Miles, by me and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read > nothing? Or does he think that world-class experts at leading labs do not > know the characteristics of their own instruments, and they cannot > distinguish between parts per billion and per million? > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:niceties about our Century and a bit about LENR
I agree with what you said Alain. I think you expressed yourself better than me. Thanks. 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 Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > The general reason is that it is much safer to discuss something you > know than to open up to the unknown. > > I don't think it is the greatest cause. As I live in a country build on > massive groupthink and dissenters elimination, I know the Parkinsson > observation you cite. > > however the reason why people focus on punny or endless debate it is > because they are endless, and allow people to make unresolvable battle of > values and ego. > > The debate that are forbidden are those where the conclusion is clear. > > In groupthink people can say "we have tested all" and dissenters can > answer "except what is working". > > On cold fusion I see often that people debate on questionable experiments, > questionable entrepreneurs, but mostly avoid clear evidences that let no > questions. > > Taleb have a principle that what is true does not need many evidences... > Just citing F&P92 and McKubre experiments should close the debate on excess > heat, as those experiments have been under high scrutiny and never > challenged seriously. > Tritium may close the "is it nuclear" with few experiments like BARC and > Texas AM, confirmed by the know fraud/cherry picking of gary taubes whose > theory show the lack of honesty of the whole community of critics, and > their totale absence of arguments despite huge strutiny. > > 2-3 Helium experiments (I let Jed propose the best one) as debated here > are enough in that context to prove by statistics (correlation, not > absolute value, like Higgs - science is above tea kettle arguments and know > how to interpret weak signal since centuries) that Helium participates PdD > LENR. > > > > This explain also why we prefer to discuss on theory than on experiments... > > another bias is that as Peter noticed we start to ignore old evidences > that let no doubt, not because they have lost any value, but because the > have not convinced the one who cannot be convinced... imagining that new > evidence can convince better. > > You cannot wake someone who just pretend to sleep. If 2-3 good experiments > cannot convince someone at least to emit good structured critics, there is > no need to go further. > > > 2014-09-18 20:17 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros : > >> Hi Peter, >> >> I saw your post. I agree that the old proverb prepare for the worst and >> hope for the best is valid. >> It is just that it feels better to approach problems with a positive >> attitude - for me at least. >> I agree about the political side of the issue. I merely wanted to express >> that I am not convinced by any system and definitely do not support any >> popular US party. Yes now and then they express the same opinion. The >> difference is that they have no intention / ability / passion for the >> implementation. It is just pure propaganda. Kleptocracy do rule. >> >> In regards to the habit of take out old already solved problems it is >> part of the group thinking. Parkinson expressed that in his second law ' >> Time devoted to discussions about issues is reversed proportional to the >> importance of the issues'. (The first says that a task takes the time >> allotted to the task). The general reason is that it is much safer to >> discuss something you know than to open up to the unknown. >> >> BTW I liked your statements about the truth. >> >> 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 Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Peter Gluck >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you dear Lennart >>> >>> I have answered in part with my essay of today. >>> We will discuss later the political issues by private posts >>> it's more polite so. >>> Peter >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Lennart Thornros >> > wrote: >>> Yes, Peter it was a bit depressive. I am more optimistic than you are. I think the world is self correcting. Too much of something and there will be a pressure to stop, which eventually will bring things back toward neutral and beyond for a new opposite pressure. I have said many times that I believe we have way too much believe in large organizations and 'fair' limitations. I do not think ever was meant to be fair and I do not think we need large government to protect us from each other. ( BTW In reality the protection they offer is just lip service - combined with a lot of CYA.). Ye
[Vo]:The cobalt/nickel anomaly and the November surprise
A key date for LENR, possibly the most important date since 1989, could be the 15th Japan Cold Fusion Research Conference in Sapporo, Japan on Nov. 1-2, 2014 where Yoshino and Mizuno will present detailed results of the kilowatt reactor upgrade. They will also present nuclear data which may explain the lack of helium (or alternatively why they made a mistake and missed helium in the first presentation) and the increase in mass-2 species, both of which have been presented at MIT in what may be the most important experiment in the field - since the first one. The MIT experiment, in terms of thermal gain per unit of time, was 600% more robust than the next best experiment in the history of cold fusion (Roulette/Pons) which itself was at least double the third best. What is special about nickel with deuterium? Somehow, the switch to nickel from palladium has allowed Mizuno to leapfrog everyone for the past 25 years of experiment, and without need for fusion of deuterium to helium. If it is shown that deuterium reactions in nickel do not yield helium, yet in palladium, there is helium- then there is an obvious but painful conclusion. Unfortunately, it is not the conclusion that many observers want to see, since it will suggest that helium is an alpha decay product of palladium and not a product of fusion. In fact, the pathway to rhodium, via alpha decay stands out. Here is Gene Mallove's famous article about the 5 isotopes of rhodium which showed up in 1992. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf Notably the appearance of rare Rhodium indicates that the helium seen in LENR could derive from alpha decay of Pd, which can happen in numerous ways via deuteron interaction. There is a backstory to the Kevin Wolf story, which is why many in the field do not agree with Mallove's suggestion that helium could be coming from the alpha decay of Pd -> Rh. This route does have the distinct advantage of no expected gamma. At any rate, deuterium in Nickel does not yield helium, apparently from the charts in Mizuno's paper - yet it may produce robust excess heat in some other modality involving deuteron manipulation. One clue is that Ni is one of only two elements in the entire periodic table whose atomic weight is less than the preceding element (lower z). In this case the preceding element is cobalt (element 27) which is heavier on average. Nickel-58 is to blame, as it is "too light" for its place. Atomic weight is found by taking the atomic mass of each isotope and averaging to natural abundance. The reason for the drop in atomic weight in Nickel overall (compared to Cobalt which precedes it) is due to the distribution of isotopes: nickel-58 (68%) nickel-60 (26%), nickel-61 (1%), nickel-62 (4%), nickel-64 (1%). Because the largest contributor to the atomic weight of nickel is the Nickel-58 isotope, which is lighter than Cobalt-59 (100% of natural), the overall atomic weight average comes out "light" despite nickel having the extra proton. In terms of what we expect to see, if everything were to be predictable - most nickel "should be" Ni-60 - but that is not the case. This is not quite a singularity, but the only other place that it occurs in nature is with tellurium and iodine. Of the two cases, the first (Ni/Co) occurs in two ferromagnetic species, which could be important, especially since the copper isotope Cu-60 has such a short half-life (minutes). The combined importance of all of these factoids - is through some kind of magnetic enhanced route, which is the essence of the Letts/Cravens effect, along with the fact that Ni-58 is the most "relatively receptive" element in the periodic table for the addition of nuclear mass, due to its inherent "lightness" on relative stepwise scale. IOW - if it turns out the hydrogen or deuterium do in fact have one or more redundant ground states, and even if the reduced orbital is not stable over time, then there will exist the ability of the altered near-field of hydrogen and its ultra-strong magnetic susceptibility as an atomic species (and altered statistics of charge placement in the case of deuterium) to assist in overcoming normal Coulomb repulsion wrt other nuclei. As for predictions about November and Mizuno's show-and-tell: Mine is that the mass-2 species will be attributed to atomic deuterium, but as a stable monatomic isomer. And secondly, that there will a relative increase in the Ni-60 isotope. Both of these outcomes can be further expounded on later. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene wrote: > Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure > there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are > talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of > this work was done a decade ago. > I missed that gem. No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are talking about three of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U. Texas, Rockwell International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was stated by Miles, by me and by others many times. Has Jones Beene read nothing? Or does he think that world-class experts at leading labs do not know the characteristics of their own instruments, and they cannot distinguish between parts per billion and per million? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Veeder wrote: > I read it and was impressed until I became confused by the statistical > analysis discussion on page eight. > > " > > > *For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess > heat was measuredin 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18 studies. > Thus 12 experiments yielded noexcess heat and 15 measurements gave no > excess helium."* > > Read the original documents. He explains the discrepancy. Three are excluded. One of the flasks broke so the helium could not be measured, and there were calorimetric problems with the other two, so they think the heat was an artifact. That leaves 18 which they were sure produced heat, and for which they were able to measure helium. Quoting Miles: "We completed 18 measurements of excess helium for experiments producing excess heat. These helium measurements were performed at three different laboratories: the University of Texas (References 14 and 15), Rockwell International (Reference 22), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (References 24, 25, and 31)." - Jed
