Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Aw Shucks this was supposed to be in response to the ZeroPoint message posted above, so I resent it. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Steve High wrote: > Well put, and I feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill > B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the > avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a > pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut > the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly > chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen. > Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley > emoticon) > > Steve High
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Well put, and I feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen. Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley emoticon) On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:17 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they > want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our > govt does enough of that already. > > I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all > Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t imply he’s got his head > in dark places. > > > > >“The "rules" bend under such circumstances.” > > I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless > idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal > attacks… its really pretty simple. > > > > -Mark > > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint > wrote: > > Kevin, > > Lighten up. > > ***NO. > > Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from > your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html > > > He even admits to wanting to take your money. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html > > The "rules" bend under such circumstances. "Lighten up" becomes "Get a > clue". > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
http://mechanical.illinois.edu/directory/faculty/glumac On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Carl High wrote: > FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list > himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an > out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a > valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him. > > Steve High > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important >> – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his >> theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at >> least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and >> more should have been. >> >> >> >> Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it >> could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone >> who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, >> and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important >> detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) >> >> >> >> If there really is a COP>3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then >> this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however >> instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be >> hard to entice associates to look into this… >> >> >> >> However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation >> for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water >> splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against >> light and water splitting as the source of gain? >> >> >> >> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a >> >> >> >> Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, >> and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for >> financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative >> explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the >> Department? >> >> >> >> As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past >> tactic$ perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another >> round of false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more >> investment with hardly a mention of the past failures >> >> >> >> … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. >> >> >> >> *From:* Carl High >> >> >> >> Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is >> verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific >> progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is >> not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check >> for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' >> hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little >> prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice >> this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate >> the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the >> bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple >> from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from >> Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees >> >> >> >> Steve High >> >> >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him. Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important > – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his > theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at > least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and > more should have been. > > > > Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it > could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone > who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, > and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important > detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) > > > > If there really is a COP>3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then > this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however > instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be > hard to entice associates to look into this… > > > > However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation > for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water > splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against > light and water splitting as the source of gain? > > > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a > > > > Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, > and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for > financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative > explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the > Department? > > > > As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past tactic$ > perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another round of > false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more investment > with hardly a mention of the past failures > > > > … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. > > > > *From:* Carl High > > > > Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing > support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based > on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising > that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon > emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. > It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the > day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report > and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as > well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the > LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a > technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich > and heat them to 300 degrees > > > > Steve High > > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf > > >
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Well, the professor should be questioned, if not chided - about what is > not seen and not reported, instead of what is seen and glossed over. This > is substandard, at best. > > > > It is an interesting experiment BUT it is one that looks more like the > Rossi effect than Mills. > > > > Heat is added to trigger thermal gain in experiment in which a > ferromagnetic material is used - and the added gain is seen. That fits > Rossi whereas the hallmark of Mills experiments is UV emission. No mention > of UV. > > > > The most reasonable conclusion for UV not being mentioned is that Mills > knew ahead of time, when he provided the experimental details, that UV was > absent. > > > > There is no indication that this relates to “hydrinos”… > > > > *From:* Carl High > > > > Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial > Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good > name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper > hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential > scanning calorimeter. > > > > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf > > > > Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this > evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw > presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly > straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat > signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of > anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving > of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of > Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian > shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give > him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in > jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers > would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. > > > > Steve High >
[Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential scanning calorimeter. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. Steve High
Re: [Vo]:On the Industrial Heat China Connection
There appears to be some confusion at the moment. Westerners are trying to crack the Chinese text using Google Translate. The characters for NiMH are showing up and it is not clear whether this represents a metal hydride that might be employed in battery design (a la the LiMH in my rechargeable batteries), or the "Pearl of Great Price" nickel hydride that Rossi employs in his reactor. Or is it not just a coincidence that NiMH might refer to either of those two entities? Or is it just Chinese Google Translate woes? Time for some high-level Vortex speculation say I! On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:49 PM, H Veeder wrote: > Franck Acland discusses a news article found by AlainCo on the activities > of Industrial Heat in China. The article explicitly used the term "cold > fusion". > > > > On the Industrial Heat China Connection > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/12/on-the-industrial-heat-china-connection/ > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
Perhaps a dumb question, but would there be enough deuterium in natural hydrogen to carry the reaction forward? On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM, David Roberson wrote: > The main problem I see with this line of reasoning is that Rossi and DGT > are getting positive results. Why would that happen unless the normal > hydrogen reacts with nickel directly? There may well be a reaction of D > taking place within the system, and if singular hydrogen is the result, > then that should start reacting by itself generating heat. There remain > too many questions and it is prudent to consider that this experiment needs > to be replicated before the total story unfolds. > > I would much rather see normal hydrogen reacting with nickel as the main > energy source for several good reasons. Rossi and DGT appear to have > strong positive results and of course the cost of D is far in excess to > that of 1H. Let's allow the dust to settle a bit. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > To: vortex-l > Sent: Fri, Mar 28, 2014 11:06 am > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming > > *From:* Eric Walker > >I would have thought that the protons would migrate out and recombine > to form H2. But I don't think that would account for a twofold increase. > > There would be a net decrease in gas quantity under any scenario in which > D2 reacts with nickel - never wound an increase be expected, even small - > much less a ~2:1 increase in gas quantity. Amazing. > > The chances of measurement error are minimal with this kind of > instrumentation, especially since they performed a control run which did as > expected - so the best assumption is that what they reported was at least > fairly accurate. > > This takes a while to sink in, but it most likely means essentially that > almost every deuterium atom is converted into 2 hydrogen atoms, with a net > gain in energy. This also means that very few deuterons could have reacted > with nickel, or else the quantity of gas would not have increased so > remarkably. > > That is our most likely starting premise, unless there was severe > measurement error. If there was measurement error in this aspect - then the > calorimetry is also highly suspect, since it is much harder to perform. > However, the control run indicates that they did everything correctly and > we should at least start our analysis with that premise. > > Jones >
