Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
Thanks to all who noticed and kindly commented on my leaving the Vortex-L list (apparently actually getting off the list takes rather longer than I expected …). Since you ask, I’m quitting because I simply don’t have the time to keep up with all of the posts to the list most of which are definitely not in my field. If something hot in LENR comes up and anyone cares to nudge me, I’d be grateful but until then I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for a breakthrough … Best regards, Mark.
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Hot fusion OU milestone reported
Correct me if I'm wrong but they didn't really achieve OU because the target only got 10% of the incident energy so the actual energy gain was in a subsystem rather than in the whole system. [m] On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: As a skeptic I demand that another independent group of scientists replicate the results. How do we know that the input power required to run the lasers is accurately measured? The list of possible errors is a mile long for an experiment this complicated. The important point that I think we've missed is that the scientists carrying out this research are *qualified* scientists. For this kind of scientist, independent replication is not necessary, because they have sufficient skill to carry out an experiment whose results one can trust. About the recent milestone, if I may be allowed to move the goalposts a little: now the challenge is to get continuous OU operation, producing enough energy to recuperate the investment in hardware and people operating the system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Is there an explanation somewhere of how this machine is supposed to work? Who's funding the projects? [m] On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: RAR are progressing with the construction of their second gravity engine and posted four new photos today. Presumably they have now had some operating experience of the first model yet continue to build the second one. http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2019%20eng.JPG ref http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=ptu=http://www.rarenergia.com.br/prev=/search%3Fq%3DRAR%2Benergia%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dfmx%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official
[Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference
January 31, 2014 General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED, the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage. A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion technology. Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy source for the world. He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy. General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to making fusion clean energy a reality. TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014. About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest, most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy. Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders, and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean, safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.
Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference
You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending billions of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given that progress in this field could be described as moderate at best would you also say enough? [m] On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of dollars. We are not even close to a working generator. At what point do we say enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at cold fusion for a change? Instead, they keep exploring different variations of hot fusion, all of which have the same basic problems. Remember what Einstein said about insanity. Ed Storms On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: I don't get it. Why whinge like that? I think it's great they are trying. Let them take their best shot. Better than investing billions of dollars in SnapChat. On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational thinking take over from the bad habits of the past? Ed Storms On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: January 31, 2014 General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED, the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage. A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion technology. Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy source for the world. He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy. General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to making fusion clean energy a reality. TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014. About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest, most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy. Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders, and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada. About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean, safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:What the Japanese Government Isn’t Saying About F**ushima
Follow-up to the sailors affected by radiation poisoning on the USS Ronald Reagan: US Sailors’ Lawsuit Dismissed in Fukushima Radiation Exposure Case ... http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/12/us-sailors-lawsuit-dismissed-in-fukushima-radiation-exposure-case/ [m] On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I just noticed that this is exactly a year old ... I don't know why the Post picked it up again. Paul C. Garner | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-c-garner/8/366/536 We will be filing our second amended complaint against Tepco before January 6, 2014 ... Seems to be up to 150 sailors. Sailor on USS Reagan ill from radiation By Jed Boal on 14 August 2013 for KSL.com http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/12/uss-ronald-reagan-fukushima.html ... Attorney Paul C. Garner, representing 150 former sailors and Marines, has sued the Japanese power company and is seeking $3 billion to be set up in a fund to help victims. ..
Re: [Vo]:Oxyntix
Oxyntix just got a 1M UKP venture capital investment ... it looks like there are deep pockets that believe the company has got something. [m] On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The reference patent states: The development of fusion power has been an area of massive investment of time and money for many years. This investment has been largely centred on developing a large scale fusion reactor, at great cost. However, there are other theories that predict much simpler and cheaper mechanisms for creating fusion. Of interest here is the umbrella concept inertial confinement fusion, which uses mechanical forces (such as shock waves) to concentrate and focus energy into very small areas. This is not a LENR reaction, it is an attempt at inertial confinement fusion, a hot fusion technology. As such, I doubt that this technology will be successful. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Here is the list of all the patents that may form the intellectual basis of the referenced company. http://patents.justia.com/inventor/yiannis-ventikos On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is the Patent application title: HIGH VELOCITY DROPLET IMPACTS Inventors: Yiannis Ventikos (Oxford, GB) Nicholas Hawker (Oxford, GB) Class name: Induced nuclear reactions: processes, systems, and elements nuclear fusion including accelerating particles into a stationary or static target http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120281797 -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer Has anybody come across a company called Oxyntix, a spin off company from Oxford University http://www.oxyntix.com/ The website is very sparten, but it does include a sentence with a familiar ring to it: A core technology we are promoting involves generation of extremely high temperatures, pressures and densities originating from fully controlled, optimised and scalable bubble collapse processes. One of the few press releases also has a familiar ring: This technology has numerous potential applications, notably in nuclear fusion power generation and Nigel
Re: [Vo]:What LeClair really said.
Which aspects of the 'results' do you think are true and why? [m] On Saturday, November 9, 2013, Nigel Dyer wrote: I am not sure that a translation would be of much help. With LeClair I think you need to try and separate out the hypothesies as to the mechanism from the observations of what happened. Too often LeClair confuses the two. There is a lot to be said for the 'Method/Results/Discussion' format of presenting information. If we are convinced that at least some aspects of the 'results' are real (I am), I tend to feel you need to start again from first principles on the 'discussion' section. On 08/11/2013 23:13, Axil Axil wrote: LeClair said as follows: “The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab”. What could it all mean - a translation. cnoid IMHO, this is a misspelling of Conoid In geometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry, a *conoid* is a Catalan surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_surface all of whose rulings intersect a fixed linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29, called the *axis* of the conoid. If all its rulings are perpendicular to its axis, then the conoid is called a right conoidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_conoid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conoid
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
So, from other threads on this list it sounds like it's possible that the detected radiation might not be extraordinary? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: So that pundits like you can write that threshold article that pushes the world that one last inch. When life gives you lemons, make some lemonade, man. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Why does the MFMP produce such execrable writing? That article reads that it was translated from Urdu into English. [m] On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The pundit writes an article, which will trigger other articles, which -- perhaps in a matter of days -- may trigger an avalanche of interest. Public opinion changes quickly in the Internet era. ***The MFMP finding Gamma Rays might be just that threshold event... http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/347-gamma
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Vortex
[m]
On Thursday, November 7, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mgi...@gibbs.com'); wrote:
So, from other threads on this list it sounds like it's possible that the
detected radiation might not be extraordinary?
What do you mean by this list? What list? Do you mean the comments at
the MFMP?
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/347-gamma
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
Really? Is LeClair's experiment that easily replicated? If it can be done for $250 why has no one else done it? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. After that, they will be where LeClair is now, regarded as a madman by all and sundry. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, the reality is (remember that? reality?) that MFMP is constrained by resources just like everyone else is in the physical real world. If you have experiments that you would like to see done and tools/equipment/materials you can give them, I am pretty sure they'd be all over that.
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Yes, I meant not significant ... that was what I took away from Bob Higgins' comment: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: From a product perspective, don’t forget that CRT’s produce X-rays in this energy range. The CRTs were later designed to have leaded glass to minimize the emissions, but they first shipped with the emissions. Even many of the older high voltage rectifier tubes produced X-rays. So, there is nothing about having a primary reaction channel yielding low energy gamma that would prevent a shipping product. Another thing ... if low energy gamma is being blocked by the reactor wall after some prolonged period of operation wouldn't the inside of the wall show an elevated level of radiation? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I would say that the detected radiation is NOT extraordinary. Dr. Storms published a paper on his measurements of radiation from LENR experiments. . . . You mean it is not unexpected in a cold fusion reaction. That's right. There are many reports of gamma rays in the literature, from Iwamura and others. Gamma rays have been sporadic and unpredictable. I do not know of any that appear on demand. I hope these come from the vasty deep when you do call for them. (When you invoke them, as we say in the programming biz.) Mark Gibbs may have the impression that it is not extraordinary meaning not significant or not proof of a nuclear reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
But that doesn't answer the question: If it only costs $250 to replicate LeClair's experiment why hasn't it been done? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LeClair has patented the whole process including replication. That is what he states, I don't know if this statement holds water. He says that replication is extremely dangerous and he does not want to see anybody go through what he when through.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Really? Is LeClair's experiment that easily replicated? If it can be done for $250 why has no one else done it? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. After that, they will be where LeClair is now, regarded as a madman by all and sundry. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, the reality is (remember that? reality?) that MFMP is constrained by resources just like everyone else is in the physical real world. If you have experiments that you would like to see done and tools/equipment/materials you can give them, I am pretty sure they'd be all over that.
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
OK, so it seems that gamma rays may be an output from LENR systems but is it the case that experimenters have just simply failed to look for them or that they don't always occur. Likewise with the incredible magnetic field that has been claimed, has that been seen more than once? Do the MFMP people monitor for magnetic fields? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Yes, I meant not significant ... that was what I took away from Bob Higgins' comment: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: From a product perspective, don’t forget that CRT’s produce X-rays in this energy range. The CRTs were later designed to have leaded glass to minimize the emissions, but they first shipped with the emissions. Even many of the older high voltage rectifier tubes produced X-rays. So, there is nothing about having a primary reaction channel yielding low energy gamma that would prevent a shipping product. Not to put words in Bob's mouth . . . I think he meant that many devices produce gamma rays, so this would not preclude the commercial use of a cold fusion reactor that produces gammas. The reactor would not be dangerous, as long as it is properly shielded. However, this does not imply that the gamma rays are not significant from physics point of view. They are significant, meaning important or compelling, convincing. Coming from a cold fusion reactor, these gamma rays definitely prove that a nuclear reaction is occurring. They could not be produced by a mechanism similar to the one in a CRT or an x-ray machine. They are significant in the mathematical sense as well. Meaning well above the noise. They are not surprising. Not to me, anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
So, in reality, the LeClair effect can't be duplicated either because LeClair won't permit it or because it doesn't actually exist. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Axil is saying is that LeClair is claiming research replication as beneficial use and must, therefore, be licensed by the patent owner. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: If it only costs $250 to replicate LeClair's experiment why hasn't it been done? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LeClair has patented the whole process including replication. That is what he states, I don't know if this statement holds water. He says that replication is extremely dangerous and he does not want to see anybody go through what he when through.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Really? Is LeClair's experiment that easily replicated? If it can be done for $250 why has no one else done it? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. After that, they will be where LeClair is now, regarded as a madman by all and sundry. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, the reality is (remember that? reality?) that MFMP is constrained by resources just like everyone else is in the physical real world. If you have experiments that you would like to see done and tools/equipment/materials you can give them, I am pretty sure they'd be all over that.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
I was querying Axil's original claim: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. Which made it sound like such an experiment was possible. As it isn't possible because LeClair won't allow it then the assertion they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor is pointless. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's the logical implication of what Axil's saying. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in reality, the LeClair effect can't be duplicated either because LeClair won't permit it or because it doesn't actually exist. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Axil is saying is that LeClair is claiming research replication as beneficial use and must, therefore, be licensed by the patent owner. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: If it only costs $250 to replicate LeClair's experiment why hasn't it been done? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LeClair has patented the whole process including replication. That is what he states, I don't know if this statement holds water. He says that replication is extremely dangerous and he does not want to see anybody go through what he when through.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Really? Is LeClair's experiment that easily replicated? If it can be done for $250 why has no one else done it? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. After that, they will be where LeClair is now, regarded as a madman by all and sundry. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, the reality is (remember that? reality?) that MFMP is constrained by resources just like everyone else is in the physical real world. If you have experiments that you would like to see done and tools/equipment/materials you can give them, I am pretty sure they'd be all over that.
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Thank you, an outstanding summary. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: To answer Mark's question, I believe that if you had a gamma sensor inside the reactor, you would see gamma every time you see LENR (Bob's opinion). What would change is the spectrum of the gamma. When the LENR starts or runs un-optimized, the photon energy is higher - perhaps in the 50 keV to 200 keV range. At this energy, the photons will statistically penetrate most reactor housings and would be detectable. Then when the reaction becomes optimized for heat output, the gamma spectrum shifts to much lower energy photons - in the 5 keV to 25 keV range. Photons in this range would be absorbed in the nickel powder and the stainless reactor vessel and would be turned into heat; and, some, probably only a few, would make it out statistically for detection as a low rate gamma in a sensitive detector. If you had the reactor vessel and the gamma scintillator detector (NaI) surrounded by lead to block the environmental radiation, you might be able to see some of this low energy gamma leak if you have a thin wall reactor vessel. This is what I am setting up now. Then I will be able to correlate the radiation peaks to events such as gas loading and thermal outbursts. The magnetic field has only been reported AFAIK by Defkalion. Their reactor is stimulated differently than anyone else's and it could be the HV plasma pulses they setup that provide a magnetic field alignment and result in a big field. It is a fascinating phenomenon, that if it pans out, could provide a means for direct LENR to electrical conversion. I look forward to hearing more about this. I have some experiments regarding this planned as well. I can't say if the MFMP people are monitoring for magnetic fields, but I am sure some them are seeing your question. I would like to make sure that you are clear on the terms gamma and X-ray. Gamma rays are defined as photons being generated from a nucleus. Gamma ray photons usually have a really high energy, but not always. X-rays are also photons, usually generated by inner shell electrons of an atom. X-ray photons normally have an energy range from a few keV (just above EUV) to about 100keV. Gamma photons can be as high as 10's of MeV, and are infrequently seen below 25keV. But just to be clear, gamma and X-ray photons at the same energy level are the same thing - photons. Gamma just refers to the provenance of having come from a nucleus. Thank you, Jed, for trying to clear up what I was trying to say. I meant to say that gamma may occur with LENR every time, but few detect it, in most cases for failure to detect with adequate sensitivity, and/or working with a too thick of reactor vessel which attenuates the gamma rate to below the environmental radiation level. Focardi published a paper with Piantelli in 2004, Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems, where he describes gamma photons (the electromagnetic radiation) spectrum. They detected 661keV gamma and reported it in that paper. So, this is far from new. But, everyone became focused on heat, in part because Rossi seemed to be getting heat while claiming no radiation. In his case, I think he was referring to no radiation leakage outside of his reactor vessel. I believe his reaction is well optimized and produces prodigious gamma photons whose energy is below 20keV and almost all of it is thermalized in his reactor shell. Bob On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: OK, so it seems that gamma rays may be an output from LENR systems but is it the case that experimenters have just simply failed to look for them or that they don't always occur. Likewise with the incredible magnetic field that has been claimed, has that been seen more than once? Do the MFMP people monitor for magnetic fields? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Yes, I meant not significant ... that was what I took away from Bob Higgins' comment: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: From a product perspective, don’t forget that CRT’s produce X-rays in this energy range. The CRTs were later designed to have leaded glass to minimize the emissions, but they first shipped with the emissions. Even many of the older high voltage rectifier tubes produced X-rays. So, there is nothing about having a primary reaction channel yielding low energy gamma that would prevent a shipping product. Not to put words in Bob's mouth . . . I think he meant that many devices produce gamma rays, so this would not preclude the commercial use of a cold fusion reactor that produces gammas. The reactor would not be dangerous, as long as it is properly shielded. However, this does not imply that the gamma rays
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
You can replicate anything you please without permission if you're not selling whatever it is. If the patent details how to build a LeClair system and it's clear from the patent how to do it and it only costs $250 then it is inconceivable that someone wouldn't try to replicate it. I call bullshit on the original assertion that anyone could build a working LeClair system. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LeClair wants to use patent law to be a gatekeeper for his technology. But we all know that LENR is not patentable. If you wanted to replicate LeClair's reactor, you might be involved in a legal wrangle with him. But you might have a case to dispute the patent in that LENR does not exist. One might need to study the patent to see what is claimed and what has actually been patented. We know LENR cannot be patented. A determined experimenter might find a way to overcome LeClair’s controls. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I was querying Axil's original claim: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. Which made it sound like such an experiment was possible. As it isn't possible because LeClair won't allow it then the assertion they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor is pointless. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's the logical implication of what Axil's saying. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in reality, the LeClair effect can't be duplicated either because LeClair won't permit it or because it doesn't actually exist. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: I think what Axil is saying is that LeClair is claiming research replication as beneficial use and must, therefore, be licensed by the patent owner. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: But that doesn't answer the question: If it only costs $250 to replicate LeClair's experiment why hasn't it been done? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LeClair has patented the whole process including replication. That is what he states, I don't know if this statement holds water. He says that replication is extremely dangerous and he does not want to see anybody go through what he when through.. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Really? Is LeClair's experiment that easily replicated? If it can be done for $250 why has no one else done it? [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: If these experimenters wanted to produce gammas, they only need to replicate the LeClair cavitation reactor. $250 dollars will do it. A year in the hospital from radiation exposure should be enough to rid them of their obsession from gamma radiation. They may also get a dose of neutrons and alpha particles. After that, they will be where LeClair is now, regarded as a madman by all and sundry. On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, the reality is (remember that? reality?) that MFMP is constrained by resources just like everyone else is in the physical real world. If you have experiments that you would like to see done and tools/equipment/materials you can give them, I am pretty sure they'd be all over that.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP detects GAMMA rays in LENR experiment!
I'm not really qualified to evaluate phrases such as powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices but I can't find any references to cnoid anything let alone cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages ... if anyone has any links or explanations of what this means (or is supposed to mean) I'd love to hear it. [m] On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, in reality, the LeClair effect can't be duplicated either because LeClair won't permit it or because it doesn't actually exist. One should resist putting LeClair's claims in the same basket as those of McKubre, Miles, Storms, etc., as well as Rossi and DGT. LeClair may have something, and he may not. I have not personally looked into his claims. I can say that some of the stuff he's said sounds pretty far-out (as reported by David Zweig [1]): The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Eric [1] http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cold-fusion-comedy.html
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Why does the MFMP produce such execrable writing? That article reads that it was translated from Urdu into English. [m] On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The pundit writes an article, which will trigger other articles, which -- perhaps in a matter of days -- may trigger an avalanche of interest. Public opinion changes quickly in the Internet era. ***The MFMP finding Gamma Rays might be just that threshold event... http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/347-gamma
Re: [Vo]:Thanks to Mark Gibbs
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Good to see you back in the vortex! Thanks ... actually, I never left ... just lurking and waiting for the world to change. [m]
[Vo]:Fwd: [Technobabble] Comment: Defkalion Demonstrates LENR Live, Right Now
Comment: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory this month achieved a positive net energy yield from hot fusion. See: https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php National Ignition Facility. They still have much work to do to make it an economic power source.
Re: [Vo]:Thanks to Mark Gibbs
Alain, Thanks, very kind of you to say so. [mg] On Friday, October 18, 2013, Alain Sepeda wrote: Just a thanks for his honest work of reasonable skeptic, thus treasonable convinced bu evidences... It allows that article to exist: http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/oct/18/british-gas-prices-alternative-energy-solutions
Re: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth
See http://spaceweather.com/ ... it's bogus. [mg] On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: David, You probably did not listen to the video - the scenarios they discuss are not as upbeat as yours. There are a number of additional videos/articles on the subject. Quite a few experts paint a much grimmer picture of what happens after an extreme event - no power, no transportation, no communication, no food, no replacement generators, total civil disorder, Safety systems at nuclear plants would only run for a month or so - then, as discussed in the meeting we would have Fukushimas all over the country. David Roberson wrote: I would hope that a backup system would kick in if the grid went down. Battery operation kept the Fukushima reactors safe for a few hours and had the diesels been functional, there might not have been such a mess. There are varying levels and types of EMP to worry about. EMP from a nuclear weapon most likely would behave quite differently from that sourced by a solar flare. The EMP fields from nuclear weapons are instantaneously generated with the associated extremely rapid waveforms. Is there any reason to suspect that those originating from a solar eruption would be similar? My guess is that a large, long term, but slowly changing field would be easy to defend against. All of the problems would appear almost DC related instead of high energy microwave like. For instance radios would not even be dangerously damaged with solar related issues. Transformer overloads would be likely, and so would transmission lines, and other long distance metallic paths. This would be bad, no doubt, but not likely to blow up the diesel systems and their controls. The battery backups should survive without serious harm either. So, we could expect serious problems with power transmission that lasts until the components are repaired, but I doubt a nuclear catastrophe. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 7:03 pm Subject: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth They ought to be working on it now. In 1859 many/most had access to farms for food and did not rely on electricity/electronics for almost everything. Today we have millions of people racked and stacked in cities totally reliant on a power infrastructure that could be knocked out for a year or more. A large flare is going to happen. Fukushima was a good example of how woefully unprepared a power company is if there is a loss of grid power and diesel backup. I wonder if those diesel gensets have electronic ignitions that will still function? I used to work for Honeywell, what if the control system gets fried? I still remember those helicopters dumping loads of water on top of the reactors, how effective was that? On Thursday, August 1, 2013, wrote: Dave, I don't think ChemE is being gloomy. Starting at 0:48:42 in the video, someone remarks - ... A general EMP would have Fukushimas all over the country. One recent paper in arxiv indicated that the probability of such an event in a human lifetime is not that small. The video shows that the elites are abandoning normality bias. As they stated, for less than $2B, the grid could be hardened. That's money well spent. -- Lou Pagnucco Dave Roberson wrote: No need to be so gloomy ChemE. We have survived thus far. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 1, 2013 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:(Video) Catastrophic solar flare narrowly misses Earth There will come a day. It probably won't be the EMP directly that gets us. It will be untold numbers of fission reactors that cannot get their backup batteries and diesel generators to run, or enough diesel fuel, which will lead to multiple meltdowns and will be the end to life as we know it. [...]
[Vo]:Forbes LENR Coverage
Ladies and Gentlemen, Following my last post to my blog on Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/) my tenure with that organization has come to an end. Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial. I will still cover any significant LENR developments in my Network World blog (http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/96) but the focus there is considerably different so unless it has a significant bearing on IT the topic won't get covered. Thanks for all your plaudits, criticisms, and comments in my Forbes postings over the last couple of years. Regards, Mark Gibbs.
Re: [Vo]:Preparing for the Defkalion demos of 22 and 23 July
What do people expect these demos will show? What could make them convincing or unconvincing? If you reply either publicly or privately, please let me know if I may cite your name if I quote you. [mg] On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends. Tomorrow will take place the first public demo of Defkalion's Hyperion. Anticipating this Event, I have published today: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-is-re-defining-success-in.html re my vision about Defkalion's professional virtues and: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html the essential protocol of the demo of Defkalion. I apologize for my lack of experience in publishing pdf. files on my Blogger blog, but anyway you will get the correct impression of this achievement. Please let me and my friends know about what you will learna nd conclude from these two demos and presentations Thank you! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me
How do you know this? [mg] On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion has a much superior technology. You can just ignore Rossi. 2013/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This puts to rest Guglinski's worry that Rossi might drop dead, and the secrets might die with him, the way Patterson's secrets did. Ross has transferred his knowledge to another group of people, who have proved they mastered his knowledge. They are not all going to die at one time, so the secret will not be lost no matter what happens. (This is real life, not a thriller movie.) -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Bold attempt at OverUnity via gravity
Can anyone explain how this machine is supposed to work? [mg] On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Sterling says they are building one in Illinois: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:RAR_Energia_Ltda_Gravity_Motor We've got a page full of gravity motorhttp://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Gravity_Motors claims, but none have put as much into a prototype as a Brazilian company, RAR Energy Ltda. According to Illinois State University's *GLThttp://wglt.org/wireready/news/2013/02/00128_GravityGeneratorWeb_105637.shtml * (U.S.A.) publication: The Brazilian soybean processor Incobrasa http://www.incobrasa.com/ says it has such a technology. And it plans to install a demonstrator model at its processing plant in the Iroquois County town of Gilman this coming fall. Incobrasa ran newspaper ads about a month ago in both central Illinois and Porto Alegre, Brazil, where it says an affiliated company developed the generator. Emailing from Brazil, company president Renato Ribeiro gives few details, but says this sort of energy technology has been sought for centuries, so it's natural that people are skeptical. He promises that the technology will surprise a lot of people, and that they've already applied for a patent. The demonstration model, which is the size of a small house, allegedly will be able to produce 30 kW -- about enough to handle the peak load from two homes. more
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR
Everything you're talking about equates intelligence with problem solving which is essentially a very narrow view of what intelligence involves and that's fine if problem solving is the only measure of intelligence you care about. The problem with this perspective is that it excludes other aspects that many people consider to be part of intelligence such as artistic creativity, musical ability, poetic and story-telling abilities, empathic ability, and so forth. As weak as the Turing test is, it goes some of the way to evaluating something that formal problem-solving tests of intelligence don't address: The quality of consciousness and understanding of hard to define things such as emotions and attitudes because it is based on human brains making judgements about the qualities of what may or may not be a human brain. Your example of testing of a super-intelligent alien would tell us nothing about its broader intelligence that we couldn't discern through dialog with it (what would be, in reality, a Turing test) ... indeed, what if the alien was horrible at problem solving but a genius at understanding how human emotions worked? Imagine an alien who couldn't solve a Sodoku puzzle or get a double digit score playing Tetris but in a single therapy session could deduce the source of your emotional problems, explain them to you in such a way that you could address them, and cure your depression, PTSD, or whatever your issues are ... would that alien be intelligent? [mg] On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences, one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is formal in the sense that any theory is formal. I think we are largely in agreement here. There are perhaps two or three different formal approaches that are possible -- there's the formality of a formal definition, i.e., intelligence is A and B, where you can rigorously show that A and B are satisfied or not, in a mathematical sense. And then there's the formality of a procedure -- its not clear exactly what intelligence is and whether computers can have it, but we think we can rigorously detect some examples of intelligence being used that could potentially overlap with what computers can do now or in the future. For our experiment, we'll try to place bounds the question by doing C and D, and whatever we find, it will be interesting and statistically sound. And then there's the formality of a model -- we don't know exactly what intelligence is or whether computers can have it, but we need to approach the problem systematically and relate the results to other experiments, so here are our general assumptions: E and F. It would probably be difficult to keep these three dimensions apart in actual experiments. But it seems to me that the first kind of formality could lead people into to assuming the answer implicitly in the question; for example, intelligence is the ability to solve a certain class of NP-hard problems together with fill in three other abilities. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Waterspouts can't lift water?
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: *Curious what others think about that water moving up in the spout as it crosses onto land. I don't think the humidity changes that much so I do not think it is due to a change in condensing (which would be vacuum condensing anyway) I know how much horsepower it takes to pump water that high and air can't do that...* See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1977)105%3C0725%3AWWTAPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 [mg]
[Vo]:E-Cat Offer and Swedish District Heating
I've seen some buzz that implies Swedish District Heating may take up Hydro Fusion's E-Cat offer but when I chased it down everything pointed to just one article self-published by Russ George [1] that actually only suggests SDH as a suitable candidate. Anyone know anything more? [mg] [1] http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/06/21/district-heating/
Re: [Vo]:Could Rossi add DC Power to AC Lines?
While this whole argument has become somewhat ridiculous the assertion that ... to idly discuss these claims without proper verification is very careless because of some theoretical economic impact has got to be the most ridiculous so far. If this were a real concern then science fiction should be banned. [m] On Saturday, June 29, 2013, blaze spinnaker wrote: Because the implications, if the AHE report is accurate, are overwhelming. And while it will be net positive, there will be massive creative destruction that will occur if the eCat is real. For example, in my province alone huge political spending programs on education and social welfare are being made on the promise of future tax and royalty earnings over the next decade from our natural gas production (ng which is mostly used for heating). If those revenues are about to be disrupted, this has huge implications on our province and how we plan our infrastructure spending. 10+ Billion dollar loans and guarantees are being made based on our current plans. Those 10s of billions of tax dollars could potentially be wasted. That's just one tiny example that I have specific experience with. Survey things on a more global basis and you'll see thousands of similar examples worldwide. So to idly discuss these claims without proper verification is very careless. On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Begin forwarded message: *From: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Date: *June 29, 2013 8:30:35 AM MDT *To: *Eric ehonsow...@ix.netcom.com *Cc: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Subject: **Re: [Vo]:Could Rossi add DC Power to AC Lines?* Thanks Eric! Another voice of reality and reason is heard. I agree with your analysis. Ross not only does not have the ability to create the claimed fraud, but also he does not have the incentive to create one that would be so easy to discover. He has a method that produces anomalous energy, as has been demonstrated to be possible by numerous studies. He has spent his own money trying to get a device to market. The device has been examined by competent people, but perhaps not as perfectly as anyone would want. Nevertheless, enough to satisfy investors, which is the only people who matter at this stage. The skeptics are clearly irrational on several levels. As Jones said, if Rossi is right, he will greatly help mankind. If Rossi is wrong, only his investors will be hurt. So why would any rational person work to find fault in what he is doing if they are not potential investors? Do these people not have a life they can use to actually make a contribution to society? Are examples of REAL fraud that has clearly harmed everyone not enough to get their interest? Ed On Jun 29, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Eric wrote: So I read this board all the time but have not posted as you guys are usually smarter than I am. However, I am an Electrical Engineer working with many other Electrical Engineers and the question of how easy would it be to add DC power to the AC lines was interesting enough that we discussed it. Here is our conclusion: Could it be done - Yes However it would be somewhat tricky and there would be at least one trick needed to hide it from the power analyzer. The simplest way would be the add a DC source in the neutral leg of the three phase before it exited the wall socket, better right at the three phase transformer. This would cause a DC current to flow in all phases that are connected. Since the third phase does not appear to be connected that would be two phases. The DC supply would be in series with the three phase AC so it would need to allow the AC to flow through it's output stage without trying the regulate the AC or overheating. This would not be any DC supply we are aware of except maybe a
Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat
Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a significant power gain be detectable and verifiable? [mg] On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged... That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will supply plenty of H)? How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous environment?? -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote: Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen). The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat
So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw a gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1% (1.82W/30.05W). [mg] [1] http://data.hugnetlab.com/ On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi MarkG, No, you’re not missing anything… a control cell producing some small amount of heat would result in a **conservative** (i.e., lower) estimate of power generated in the test cell… assuming that the test cell is at least several sigma above the control cell so experimental uncertainty was not a reasonable explanation for the excess. -Mark I ** ** *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Gibbs *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:31 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat ** ** Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a significant power gain be detectable and verifiable? ** ** [mg] ** ** ** ** ** ** On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged... That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will supply plenty of H)? How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous environment?? -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote: Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen). The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently? Cheers, S.A. ** **
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be taken (as before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below and further assuming that Rossi won't allow anyone to see him start the E-Cat what tamper-proof measuring system would you insert at 'X'? E-Cat --- Controller -X--Wall socket So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that: 1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and may not be unplugged. 2. The test team leaves. 3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof measuring system, and starts it. 4. The test team re-enter, confirm the tamper-proof measuring system has, indeed, not been tampered with and set up the rest of their test gear. So, what does the tamper-proof measuring system? Would that satisfy everyone? [m] On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote: Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube furnace. They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I think he was making two points: 1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work because they had the means to see through it. 2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation. Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I, and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about this aspect of the paper. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know even though they have no actual evidence of fraud and can't prove anything. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test results. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big blue box – which was shipped out of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina … and which is fairly close to Greensboro and also to “Mayberry” – aka Mt. Airy This is a wild guess, based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip from Barney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in the bud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-plants Heck, if Terry makes the drive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will know where he disappeared to…
Re: [Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably pseudo-skeptics) to compile such a list until someone does and does it right they can keep bringing up the same objections over and over again. I'd suggest it is your opportunity to take the high-ground on objectivity ... My $0.02 [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again . . . I have not gone through the arguments but as far as I can tell, only two have been proposed: 1. The so-called cheese idea. As I have pointed out, they would discover this when they go to measure voltage. 2. Shanahan's theory that IR cameras do not work, even when you confirm them with thermocouples. The other objections I have noted were not objections at all. They were meaningless. For example, Mary Yugo said that one of the tests was invalid because the reactor was already running when the researchers arrived. So what? That cannot affect the result. Think about the Pu-238 reactor on the Curiosity mars explorer. It was hot from the moment the isotope was separated. The half life is 88 year so it will be palpably hot for hundreds of years, and measurably hot for thousands of years. You cannot turn off this nuclear reaction. But that does not prevent you from measuring the power of the reactor. You start at time X and go to time Y. The fact that the reactor was running before X and continued to run after Y has no impact on your measurement. If anything, this bolsters the evidence that the reactor is not a battery and it has no stored chemical fuel. Another meaningless objection is to the use of 3-phase electricity. It is not harder to measure, and the 2 extra wires are not a rat's nest. A third example would be Milstone's demand that we separately measure the heat from electricity and the anomalous reaction. That is physically impossible. Heat all flows together throughout a reactor. As I tried to explain to him, the only way you can separate two heat sources is when you can measure exactly how big one of them is. Fortunately, in this case, we can. There are several experiments such as Arata's where heat comes from multiple sources including chemical reactions and cold fusion. There is no way to separate them, except by guesswork. That is a serious deficiency. There are also strange, unfounded notions, such as Mary Yugo's assertion that the temperature at the core of the reactor should be 2 times or 6 times higher than the heater envelope because the core produces 2 to 6 times the heat of the electric heater. It doesn't work that way. The vessels are made of metal which conducts heat easily, so the heat quickly flows from one to the other. Anyway the temperature does not start at zero so you would not see 6 times higher numbers. If you had two reactors side by side, insulated from one another, all else being equal the difference between ambient and the reactor core temperature would be proportional to the difference in power . . . but that is a whole different situation. There were a whole bunch of factually correct objections that are not problems at all but rather advantages that should bolster confidence. Levi et al. deliberately underestimated, going to conservative extremes. Several skeptics pointed these underestimations if they were problems, and as if Levi did not notice them. For example, they said the surface area of the reactor was underestimated because it was treated as a flat plain rather than a cylinder. Yes, we know. The authors pointed this out. No, this does not affect the conclusion. There were a few backward assertions. That is, statements that are factually 180 degrees wrong, such as Mary Yugo's complaint that this method is excessively complicated. On the contrary it is the simplest method known to science, with the fewest instruments and only one physical principle, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Other methods are more accurate or precise, but this is the simplest. Also the most reliable once you do some reality checks and calibrations. Then there is the unclassifiable weirdness such as Shanahan's demand that they publish all of the thermocouple data. The authors said the thermocouple tracked the IR camera the whole time, staying just about 2 deg C above it, for an obvious and mundane reason. Okay, so if you want to see that data set, go to Plot 1, Emitted thermal power vs time. Print that out, and draw another line smack on top of the first line. You would not see the 2 deg C difference on this scale. Shanahan refuses to believe the authors because they did not print a graph with two lines right on top of one another. That's hilarious, but it isn't science. but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which never DID show up ...) Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only the two posts we discussed. [m]
Re: [Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters
The mere appearance of being normal doesn't mean someone is normal. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: It’s the weekend! Time for a brief break! ** ** For all those Vorts who might be interested in some OT far out stuff… ** ** Simon Parks, a British town counsel, who apparently went public back in 2010 about his on-going intimate alien encounters is getting some CNN.com coverage today. Not surprisingly the entire subject is being discussed at cnn.com as entertaining fodder. ** ** I decided to dig a little deeper, as Google is your friend! I found two YouTube files, and audio recording that seems informative. It’s an actual interview with the individual – about 139 minutes in length. ** ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzB6Zth2wm0 ** ** And another video, about an hour long http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/26/town-councillor-simon-parkes-my-mum-was-a-9ft-green-alien-365412/ ** ** At present I make no judgment calls on the matter. I had never heard about the Simon Parks story till I saw the short clip on cnn.com. I’ll only add that over the many years that I’ve gone to UFO meetings I’ve met many individuals who claim to have had CE4K encounters. In my experience such individual seem to fall into two categories. ** ** Category 1: Within 30 seconds it becomes obviously clear that they are certifiable. Fortunately, mostly harmless. ** ** Category 2: They seem just as normal, perceptive, and rational as you or me. ** ** Simon strikes me as belonging n category #2. ** ** Make up your own mind! ;-) ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Molecular Impact Steam Technology
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... Richard Aho … or “Smokie” CEO or MIST - tries to defend his device to skeptics. It is not easy to do. There are many red flags and the so-called testing stinks. Now where have we heard that before ... ? He may or may not have something valid That about covers all the options ... but what he does not have is acceptable test data. And that sounds familiar too [m]
[Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect rediscovered in Japan
Are there any indications the Reifenschweiler effect produces excess heat along with the decrease in radioactivity? [m] On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see where I can add a comment to that article in ColdFusionNow but anyway, here are three papers from Otto: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwsomeexperi.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Teh Google knows all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans And see: http://bancomicsans.com/main/ [mg] On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Rich Murray wrote: uh, what is Comic Sans ? clueless in Imperial Beach, CA, Rich On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams). I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares away anyone who has no stomach for fringe science. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams). [mg] On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: But, seriously, that was an excellent description. Can you supply a link to it? Roger -- From: cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700 Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic. Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP *Fictional miss-identification:* Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column. *Delusions of superiority:* In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars. *Hyper-realistic representation:* This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. [mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the effect. The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this and he may well be lying (e.g. there may be no catalyst). The effect seems to have been demonstrated by the tests. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. However, if you goal is to convince non-believer then it is best to avoid systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, material emissivity's,. you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps not. Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go in my humble opinion. Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not. We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real. If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the armaments business. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
What is a Hydroton? I googled the term and all I could find were references
to a clay-based plant growing medium much prized by marijuana growers ...
[mg]
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'stor...@ix.netcom.com');
wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull
away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line.
Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If
outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will
damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well
understood.
In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The
temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the
length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior.
The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical
distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less
than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of
negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The
barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance
to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The
response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers
the energy of the system.
Ed,
With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the
emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of
atoms on the system. The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical
reaction which requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction
products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb
hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted increases with
each cycle.
The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the
nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately
increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before
all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot
fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst
of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted
and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product.
In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a uniform
gravitational field. It is possible to climb such a barrier in steps by
emitting the same amount of energy with each cycle, but this barrier does
not correspond with the actual barrier that exists between protons.
Climbing a genuine coulomb barrier requires more energy with each cycle, so
that requires more energy be emitted with each cycle. The extra energy
emitted heats the lattice even more and produces more powerful vibrations
of the lattice which can push the protons even closer together.
I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories require
a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of Gibbs energy.
Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in stages to avoid the
hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei get close using a muon and
without the ability to limit the process. Unfortunately, the other theories
ignore these requirements.
The proton has nothing to do with the work done at each step. This work
comes from the temperature. The photon results because the assembly has too
much mass-energy for the distance between the nuclei. If the nuclei
touched, the assembly would have 24 MeV of excess mass-energy if they were
deuterons. If they are close but not touching, the stable mass-energy
would be less. At a critical distance short of actually touching, the
nuclei can know that they have too much mass energy. How they know this
is the magic that CF has revealed.
Here is the magic: they share an electron and it is through this common
ground that they know. If they don't share an electron they won't give up
any excess mass-energy until they are touching at which point they give it
up all at once which is what happens in hot fusion.
Harry
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that error actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong. Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about LENR is also hand waving? [m]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel
Daniel, The link you gave (May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958) doesn't have a posting with the text you quoted and I can't find that text on the site. Can you send a link to the letter from Rossi you quoted? Thanks. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958 TO OUR READERS, REGARDING WIKIPEDIA: I MUST AGAIN GIVE THIS INFORMATION: WIKIPEDIA, AFTER THEY WROTE US ( BY TOM CONOVER) THAT THE PAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED, TODAY AGAIN I SAW ON WIKIPEDIA THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS A SUE PENDING AGAINST ME FOR EVENTS OF MY LIFE OF 20 YEARS AGO, FROM WHICH I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. TODAY AGAIN I TRIED TO CORRECT THE FALSE INFORMATION, BUT NOT ONLY THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN DELETED IN FEW SECONDS ( LESS THAN 1 MINUTE), BUT OUR IT GUY HAS BEEN BANNED TO WRITE AGAIN ON WIKIPEDIA. FROM THIS FACT THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT: 1- I HAVE IRREVOCABLY DECIDED TO SUE WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBELLING. ALL THE MONEY WE WILL OBTAIN AS A REFUND FOR THE DAMAGES THEY HAVE CAUSED, ARE CAUSING AND WILL CAUSE TO US WILL BE GIVEN TO A FAMILY THAT NEEDS IT FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WHO HAS A CANCER 2- I INVITE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE NOT THE FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA, BUT AN INFORMATION ADHERENT TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, CAN GO TO http://WWW.INGANDREAROSSI.COM http://www.ingandrearossi.com/ I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH I HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1995 ( ARREST THAT CAUSED THE BANKRUPTS OF PETROLDRAGON AND OTHER MY COMPANIES, AFTER AN ASSASSINATION OF MY CHARACTER THAT NOW SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO REMAKE) AND WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION. NO SUES OF ANY KIND ARE PENDING AGAINST ME AND I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE CRIMES FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN ARRESTED !. AND WIKIPEDIA KNOWS THIS, THEY KNOW THIS, BUT CONTINUE TO PUBLISH A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY KNOW THAT IT IS FALSE HOW CAN BE POSSIBLE A THING LIKE THIS WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY US THAT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE. THEY KNOW PERFECTLY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT ME IS FALSE, BUT THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THAT INFORMATION, AND REPEATEDLY CANCELLED THE CORRECTIONS, UNTIL TODAY, WHEN THEY, AFTER CANCELLING OUR CORRECTION, HAVE BANNED US FROM THE POSSIBILITY TO WRITE CORRECTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA IS PUBLISHING FALSE INFORMATION OF ME ALSO IF WIKIPEDIA KNOWS PERFECTLY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN IS FALSE. FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE SUED BY US FOR LIBELLING. ANDREA ROSSI -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel
Rossi is infuriating. And his caps lock key is stuck. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, that's all I had. Probably he deleted. Well, I hope someone else printed the screen... 2013/5/31 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Daniel, The link you gave (May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958) doesn't have a posting with the text you quoted and I can't find that text on the site. Can you send a link to the letter from Rossi you quoted? Thanks. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958 TO OUR READERS, REGARDING WIKIPEDIA: I MUST AGAIN GIVE THIS INFORMATION: WIKIPEDIA, AFTER THEY WROTE US ( BY TOM CONOVER) THAT THE PAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED, TODAY AGAIN I SAW ON WIKIPEDIA THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS A SUE PENDING AGAINST ME FOR EVENTS OF MY LIFE OF 20 YEARS AGO, FROM WHICH I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. TODAY AGAIN I TRIED TO CORRECT THE FALSE INFORMATION, BUT NOT ONLY THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN DELETED IN FEW SECONDS ( LESS THAN 1 MINUTE), BUT OUR IT GUY HAS BEEN BANNED TO WRITE AGAIN ON WIKIPEDIA. FROM THIS FACT THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT: 1- I HAVE IRREVOCABLY DECIDED TO SUE WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBELLING. ALL THE MONEY WE WILL OBTAIN AS A REFUND FOR THE DAMAGES THEY HAVE CAUSED, ARE CAUSING AND WILL CAUSE TO US WILL BE GIVEN TO A FAMILY THAT NEEDS IT FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WHO HAS A CANCER 2- I INVITE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE NOT THE FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA, BUT AN INFORMATION ADHERENT TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, CAN GO TO http://WWW.INGANDREAROSSI.COM http://www.ingandrearossi.com/ I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH I HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1995 ( ARREST THAT CAUSED THE BANKRUPTS OF PETROLDRAGON AND OTHER MY COMPANIES, AFTER AN ASSASSINATION OF MY CHARACTER THAT NOW SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO REMAKE) AND WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION. NO SUES OF ANY KIND ARE PENDING AGAINST ME AND I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE CRIMES FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN ARRESTED !. AND WIKIPEDIA KNOWS THIS, THEY KNOW THIS, BUT CONTINUE TO PUBLISH A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY KNOW THAT IT IS FALSE HOW CAN BE POSSIBLE A THING LIKE THIS WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY US THAT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE. THEY KNOW PERFECTLY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT ME IS FALSE, BUT THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THAT INFORMATION, AND REPEATEDLY CANCELLED THE CORRECTIONS, UNTIL TODAY, WHEN THEY, AFTER CANCELLING OUR CORRECTION, HAVE BANNED US FROM THE POSSIBILITY TO WRITE CORRECTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA IS PUBLISHING FALSE INFORMATION OF ME ALSO IF WIKIPEDIA KNOWS PERFECTLY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN IS FALSE. FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE SUED BY US FOR LIBELLING. ANDREA ROSSI -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect hand waving began as a derisive reference to occult activities since these might involve the waving of hands and/or a wand. . You would be completely wrong. In fact, that is perhaps the most ridiculous conclusion anyone has come to so far. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!
Mark, If I get a chance may I quote you? [mg] On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mark Iverson markiver...@charter.netwrote: There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature superconductive material since its discovery in 1986, said Jak Chakhalian, professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. Unfortunately, as of today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed matter physics. ** ** After over 6 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert himself says, “we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism…” ** ** sarcasm ON ** ** Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest conspiracy to maintain their funding… ** ** Makes LENR look like small potatoes… ** ** sarcasm OFF ** ** -Mark Iverson ** **
Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet...
Sunil, May I quote you in a Forbes posting? If I may, may I cite your name? Thanks in advance. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi All, My first post, after a couple of year's hiding in the shadows.. Just want to settle a couple of things. Torbjörn Hartman's personal merits (as listed at http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170) state Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.. Assuming the line is written in Swedish (which it is, trust me : ), it says: Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör. These translate into English as: PhD Medical Science, MSc. So, my guess is he did an MSc in Engineering Physics (5 yrs) followed by research/studies in medicine. CivIng does NOT mean Civil Engineer in Sweden. It covers ALL higher level engineering science paths, that lead to a Master's level degree, and are 4-5 years long. The traditional paths being ChemEng, EE, Eng Physics, Computer Science and _Civil_Engineering_ I am bilingual (Swedish/English) and did Engineering Physics (MSc) : ) /Sunil
Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet...
Thanks. You are quoted: The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/24/the-e-cat-testing-team-real-or-ringers/ [mg] On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Mark, Hehe, yes to both, I suppose, though as stated I am guessing at what he actually studied. (Could ask him I suppose.) I found these, btw (after I posted, I swear!) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._med._vet. and http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilingenj%C3%B6r .. so it's ALL *facts* : D /Sunil -- From: mgi...@gibbs.com Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:50:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sunil, May I quote you in a Forbes posting? If I may, may I cite your name? Thanks in advance. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi All, My first post, after a couple of year's hiding in the shadows.. Just want to settle a couple of things. Torbjörn Hartman's personal merits (as listed at http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170) state Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.. Assuming the line is written in Swedish (which it is, trust me : ), it says: Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör. These translate into English as: PhD Medical Science, MSc. So, my guess is he did an MSc in Engineering Physics (5 yrs) followed by research/studies in medicine. CivIng does NOT mean Civil Engineer in Sweden. It covers ALL higher level engineering science paths, that lead to a Master's level degree, and are 4-5 years long. The traditional paths being ChemEng, EE, Eng Physics, Computer Science and _Civil_Engineering_ I am bilingual (Swedish/English) and did Engineering Physics (MSc) : ) /Sunil
[Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios
Does anone have any more in-depth bios of the group that tested the E-Cat. This is what I have so far: Giuseppe Levi Assistant Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy Bologna University Bologna, Italy Bio: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itTabControl1=TabCV Website: http://www.giuseppelevi.it/ Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/47387224/g-leviand http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabPubsupn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it Evelyn Foschi is in the product development department for medical devices, University of Bologna. Her specialty is X-ray. -- http://andrearossiecat.com/e-cat/members-of-the-3rd-party-report-commission Publications: No. Torbjörn Hartman Senior Research Engineer The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is attached to Uppsala University) Uppsala, Sweden, Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman Bo Höistad Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/51661212 Roland Pettersson Senior Lecturer Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/56841550/roland-pettersson Lars Tegnér Professor Emeritus Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: Doctoral thesis - http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=2pid=diva2:298914 - otherwise apparently not published unless he is also P.-E. Tegnér in which case he's somehow connected to Stockholm University: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/13416120/p-e-tegner Hanno Essen Docent and Lecturer Department of Mechanics of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12981049/hanno-essen Essen, Rossi's site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat. Anyone got any citations? [m]
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ... [mg] On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster here asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is not addressed by the paper. If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian, like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could still make dogs' health better. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs' article featured on major Italian newspaper
We both thank you. [mg] On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: That's pretty good! Bravo for Mark Giggs . . . And for Mark Gibbs. Him too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. [mg] On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a different address. Please standby until he has a chance to respond. This list has benefited you in the past. I suspect your gain exceeds your loss. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I said it was a moot point [1] ... and I have no interest in injuring the list. And, nope, I didn't get the news of the report here. All the same, I value this list and wouldn't want to see it interfered with which is why I asked Kevin and Bill to handle it without me getting Forbes' involved. [m] [1] From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point *moot http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot pointhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/point * (*plural* *moot points http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_points#English s* 1. ... 2. An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. I really don't care what you do to the offender; but, injuring this list is not in your best interest. After all, didn't you get the original story here?
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue? I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems just as improbable. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? [mg]
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Consider yourself asked ... oh, and what type of radiation was/would be involved? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you require the theory behind this overview, just ask.
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known? Has anyone tried to replicate that configuration? On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Others said that the Toyota research and the NEDO program were stopped because progress was too slow (I agree), and we determined this did not align with our corporate goals (which I think is nonsense), and regarding the NEDO project we never replicated (which was an outright lie). Who were the others? And who delivered the outright lie? [m]
Re: [Vo]:Novam Research comments on eCat
Interesting lack of objectivity: During the congress I met Andrea Rossi for the first time. In my estimation he is kind, competent and reputable. [mg] On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Further to the thread about gammas, here are these money quotes from the PDF by Lichtenberg concerning the reaction in Rossi's devices: About the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) within the ECAT systems: - the details of the LENR processes are still not yet known - the formerly assumed main reaction, i.e. the transmutation from nickel into copper, seems to be only a side effect which does not yield significant amounts of energy - transmutations from nickel into other nickel isotopes and iron were also reported / detected 4 - a participant did remark that the measured gamma radiation indicates that a transmutation from hydrogen into helium takes place. This comment was appreciated by Andrea Rossi but he did not confirm the actual presence of this process I now take the precaution of pointing out I am just relaying the information in the PDF and make no suggestions about the credibility of the author or the claims, lest this become a point of confusion for some. :) In the PDF, there is a claim that even for the Hot Cat, the COP is 6. In light of Jed's complaints about the inapplicability of COP to a LENR device, I'm curious how they are deriving this number, assuming for the moment that everything is being reported in good faith. One detail I like in the bullet points is the last one, about helium. I suspect that is the d+p → 3He variety. Note also that transmutations are reported to be a side phenomenon. In a just world, I think the Nobel Prize would be split between Rossi, the dogged and determined LENR researchers, Ron Maimon, and Robin, for applying Maimon's theory to nickel. Robin would only get a token amount, though, because he didn't really think it was possible. Eric On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: http://novam-research.com/resources/ECAT.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Novam Research comments on eCat
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Interesting lack of objectivity: During the congress I met Andrea Rossi for the first time. In my estimation he is kind, competent and reputable. Why do you say this reflects a lack of objectivity? What is the point of a public report from a consulting and or analysis company? To promote credibility in that company. As such the report title, ECAT – A novel and environmentally friendly LENR-based energy technology, sets our expectations that it will reveal some hard evidence to support the title yet all the report does is re-hash existing claims and assertions most of which come from Rossi himself. To then go on and from the first person assert that the promoter of the technology is kind reveals either naiveté or bias and your comments about his history do not inspire confidence in the report, his objectivity, or his accumen. I know, I know ... I'm being harsh but this report smacks of boosterism more than anything else and, as such, merely makes the field of LENR even more hype-ridden. [mg]
[Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flow
[Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true And #13 is ... [m] 13 Cold fusion AFTER 16 years, it's back. In fact, cold fusion never really went away. Over a 10-year period from 1989, US navy labs ran more than 200 experiments to investigate whether nuclear reactions generating more energy than they consume - supposedly only possible inside stars - can occur at room temperature. Numerous researchers have since pronounced themselves believers. With controllable cold fusion, many of the world's energy problems would melt away: no wonder the US Department of Energy is interested. In December, after a lengthy review of the evidence, it said it was open to receiving proposals for new cold fusion experiments. That's quite a turnaround. The DoE's first report on the subject, published 15 years ago, concluded that the original cold fusion results, produced by Martin Fleischmannhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.100-interview-fusion-in-a-cold-climate.html and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and unveiled at a press conference in 1989, were impossible to reproduce, and thus probably false. The basic claim of cold fusion is that dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - in which oxygen is combined with the hydrogen isotope deuterium - can release a large amount of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes supposedly allows deuterium nuclei to move into palladium's molecular lattice, enabling them to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing a blast of energy. The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory. That doesn't matter, according to David Nagelhttp://www.ece.seas.gwu.edu/people/nagel.htm, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. The experimental case is bulletproof, he says. You can't make it go away.
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1] to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ... [m] [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Please note, that's from 2005. - Jed
[Vo]:Is a Comet on a Collision Course with Mars?
http://www.universetoday.com/100298/is-a-comet-on-a-collision-course-with-mars/ There is an outside chance that a newly discovered comet might be on a collision course with Mars. Astronomers are still determining the trajectory of the comet, named C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring), but at the very least, it is going to come fairly close to the Red Planet in October of 2014. “Even if it doesn’t impact it will look pretty good from Earth, and spectacular from Mars,” wrote Australian amateur astronomer Ian Musgravehttp://astroblogger.blogspot.com/, “probably a magnitude -4 comet as seen from Mars’s surface.” The comet was discovered in the beginning of 2013 by comet-hunter Robert McNaught at the Siding Spring Observatory in New South Wales, Australia. According to a discussion on the IceInSpace amateur astronomy forumhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=950710 when the discovery was initially made, astronomers at the Catalina Sky Survey in Arizona looked back over their observations to find “prerecovery” images of the comet dating back to Dec. 8, 2012. These observations placed the orbital trajectory of comet C/2013 A1 right through Mars orbit on Oct. 19, 2014. However, now after 74 days of observations, comet specialist Leonid Eleninhttp://spaceobs.org/en/tag/c2013-a1-siding-spring/ notes that current calculations put the closest approach of the comet at a distance of 109,200 km, or 0.00073 AU from Mars in October 2014. That close pass has many wondering if any of the Mars orbiters might be able to acquire high-resolution images of the comet as is passes by. But as Ian O’Neill from Discovery Spacehttp://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/could-a-comet-hit-mars-in-2014-130225.htm points out, since the comet has only been observed for 74 days (so far), so it’s difficult for astronomers to forecast the comet’s precise location in 20 months time. “Comet C/2013 A1 may fly past at a very safe distance of 0.008 AU (650,000 miles),” Ian wrote, “but to the other extreme, its orbital pass could put Mars directly in its path. At time of Mars close approach (or impact), the comet will be barreling along at a breakneck speed of 35 miles per second (126,000 miles per hour).” Elenin said that since C/2013 A1 is a hyperbolic comet and moves in a retrograde orbit, its velocity with respect to the planet will be very high, approximately 56 km/s. “With the current estimate of the absolute magnitude of the nucleus M2 = 10.3, which might indicate the diameter up to 50 km, the energy of impact might reach the equivalent of staggering 2×10¹º megatons!” An impact of this magnitude would leave a crater 500 km across and 2 km deep, Elenin said. [image: Fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on approach to Jupiter (NASA/HST)]http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shoemaker-levy_9_on_1994-05-17.png Fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on approach to Jupiter (NASA/HST) While the massive Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 (15 km in diameter) that crashed into Jupiter in 1994 was spectacular as seen from Earth orbit by the Hubble Space Telescope, an event like C/2013 A1 slamming into Mars would be off the charts. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/100298/is-a-comet-on-a-collision-course-with-mars/#ixzz2M8XbWdrA
[Vo]:Is a Comet on a Collision Course with Mars?
(Sing to the tune As Time Goes By)
And so, it's come to this
A miss is just a miss
When a comet's passing by
The fundamental laws apply
Across the sky ...
[mg]
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
So, a miss is just a miss. The fundamental things apply. (Newtonian
physics).
[Vo]:Fwd: NASA Does Cold Fusion
I don't think this link has been posted to this list yet: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html ** ** [m]
[Vo]:Light particles illuminate the vacuum
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/light-particles-illuminate-vacuum In an article published in the PNAS scientific journal, researchers from Aalto University and the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland showed experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, it is a state with abundant potentials. Vacuum contains momentarily appearing and disappearing virtual pairs, which can be converted into detectable light particles. The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, virtual particles can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed. In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.
[Vo]:Rethinking wind power
“People have often thought there’s no upper bound for wind power—that it’s one of the most scalable power sources,” says Harvard University applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don’t seem likely to “run out” on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates behind it a wind shadow in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 Watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 Watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power?et_cid=3110245et_rid=523913766linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f02%2frethinking-wind-power
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated? Jed's original assertion was Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or tests or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any deep way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. [mg] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
[Vo]:Gizmag: NASA's basement reactor
BTW, did everyone see the Gizmag article NASA's basement reactor ( http://m.gizmag.com/article/26309). It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I was intrigued by this section: According to Zawodny, LENR isn’t what was thought of as cold fusion and it doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear forces, which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The LENR process involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak forces into energy. Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water. The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation. The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than it needs to get it going. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said. “Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency.” Let the comments begin ... [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. It sure sounds like you now think a theory is required ... [m] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74653.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74654.html On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A theory is not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even to satisfy skeptics.* A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings the process under control.* The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. *Until we can bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. * We will not arrive at this understanding without using some rules and agreements about what needs to be explained and apply this information to a explanation. The only issue of importance here is whether the discussion contributes to this process or distracts from it.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It makes no sense to demand a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions the theory comes first.) Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not about science, it's about technology and making something that works because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized. Gibbs is putting the cart before the horse. He is not the only one. Many professional scientists who should know better are also saying this. The only thing that matters when it comes to getting recognition and funding and changing the world is the cart. If we have a working cart that gets us where we want to go then we can wait on finding out what's pulling us around. And the need for theory is as Storms pointed out: A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. Until we can bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. Then again, perhaps theory is the wrong word ... perhaps technique would be more appropriate. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. Well, not to quibble or split hairs, but you said the Wrights had a theory of lift. They had no theory. They did not know what caused lift. They did not try to learn that. Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com (snip, snip, snip) The Wright Brothers had a theory - it was called the theory of lift. They were the first to understand this process, which allowed them to have the success that was missing when flight was attempted without this understanding. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. Ah, so if Ed speaks loosely it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a thing I'm simply wrong? The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. Ed raised the issue of the necessity of a theory and I get/got his point and I agree that's the wrong term ... as I suggested, technique might be better as that's exactly what's the problem and, indeed, what the Wright Brothers had to contend with ... they had no theory just techniques that worked to greater and lesser degrees just as you explain regarding McKubre's preparation of loaded Pd. And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's called LENR? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work and whatever Rossi and Defkalion are doing, experiments. So: 1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in some experiments 2. The experiments are not reliably repeatable 3. To date there is no theory that has been tested that explains the anomalous heat generation Is that a fair summary? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future
Too late: http://www.indiegogo.com/robotdragonfly/x/1658702 ... basic version to be priced at $250 without camera and a camera-less silent version at $280 (perfect for stealth toxic chemical delivery). Surveillance version with two cameras (one HD) with an on-board computer that may be powerful enough for UAV operation for $1,499. The project raised $1,140,975 on a goal of $110,000. [m] On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The people at General Dynamics should think twice about developing these things. Sooner or later everyone will have one, and every public figure from the President down will be endangered.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. Which is hardly god-like ... it seems to me that the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) is what a true god should be ... the alpha and omega ... all other flavors of god are, at best, demi-gods. So, if god is an experimentalist that would imply that he doesn't know the outcome of his experiments and therefore he/she is not a true god. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. A true god would not answer prayers as he would have created the conditions that required your prayers and would have determined the outcome presumably prior to genesis (when the universe was on the drawing board, so to speak) so your prayers would make no difference other than to be what he wanted you to do. If there is, indeed, a true god then we're nothing but automatons or puppets going about our pre-ordained existences and everything is as it was intended to be and can never be otherwise. If I believed that I would have to shoot myself. And that would have preordained anyway. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
How about throwing in some predictions on world resource use, nuclear power, wind power, robots, the erosion of funding for HF, or the zombie apocalypse? [mg] On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The IT predictions are interesting! I have sworn off trying to predict the future of cold fusion because it determined by politics, not technology. If it was technology we could spot a trend or extrapolate from what has happened. But the progress of cold fusion -- or likely lack of progress -- depends entirely on emotions. To be blunt, it is stymied by fanatics who oppose science and academic freedom. People repeatedly set up carefully devised funding with government agencies and private donors. Everything is lined up. Approvals are given. Then, at the last minute, Robert Park or one his crowd hears about it, raises a stink, threatens people's careers, pulls strings, and the whole project goes down the tubes. Or the meeting is cancelled, or the book is not printed. Every few months I hear about that kind of thing. As long as we face this kind of opposition there is not likely to be much funding or progress. It is a miracle the conference at U. Missouri is on track, and their research is still funded. Progress also depends to some extent on people such as Rossi, who are, shall we say, unpredictable. Self centered. Uncooperative. Prone to hurting their own interests. - Jed
[Vo]:Tech Predictions
http://www.polratings.com/predictions Currently they're all IT predictions but anyone care to predict what will happen in CF in 2013? If you have an insight, fire away: http://www.polratings.com/predictions/prediction-submission/ [mg]
[Vo]:Nanor
Does anyone know what the status is of the Nanor device at MIT? Has it been kept running? Has anyone duplicated the device and successfully run it? Thanks in advance. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Swartz has been very secretive. His web site: http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff. Probably the most info publicly available: http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/ And the video is AWOL. Sigh. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
I read that ... which is to say I scanned it but I can't draw any conclusions from it. Anyone willing to apply their huge brain to that document and summarize it? Thanks in advance. [m] On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: And the video is AWOL. Sigh. Damn. Well the .pdf is there: http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/HagelsteinPdemonstra.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
I must be behind the curve ... and what might KILOR and MEGAR be? [m] On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: technologists are waiting for KILOR and MEGAR Peter On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: There was no other video of the NANOR publicly available other than Barry Simon's (that I know). Mitchell Swartz's two summary of the course posted on Cold Fusion Times was re-posted by me here: http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/ Hagelstein's video is of theoretical issues, and speaks of NANOR here and there for support, but there is no NANOR video included (I didn't get through it to the end though!) From the release on his website, it seems that there may be some video from the Swartz portion of the course soon. On 1/31/13 7:28 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Swartz has been very secretive. His web site: http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff. Probably the most info publicly available: http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/ And the video is AWOL. Sigh. [m] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
Peter,
Come on! Are those acronyms, flavors of vodka, ... What are you talking
about?
[mg]
On Thursday, January 31, 2013, Peter Gluck wrote:
Easy to answer: something GREAT(ER) - much greater, useful and efficient.
Generating intense heat, usable as a practical energy source.
Science is magnificent, technology works for us.
Peter
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Mark Gibbs
mgi...@gibbs.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mgi...@gibbs.com');
wrote:
I must be behind the curve ... and what might KILOR and MEGAR be?
[m]
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Peter Gluck
peter.gl...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'peter.gl...@gmail.com');
wrote:
technologists are waiting for KILOR and MEGAR
Peter
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'r...@hush.com'); wrote:
There was no other video of the NANOR publicly available other than
Barry Simon's (that I know).
Mitchell Swartz's two summary of the course posted on Cold Fusion Times
was re-posted by me here:
http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/
Hagelstein's video is of theoretical issues, and speaks of NANOR here
and there for support, but there is no NANOR video included (I didn't get
through it to the end though!)
From the release on his website, it seems that there may be some video
from the Swartz portion of the course soon.
On 1/31/13 7:28 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Swartz has been very secretive. His web site:
http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html
Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff.
Probably the most info publicly available:
http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/
And the video is AWOL. Sigh.
[m]
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'r...@coldfusionnow.org');
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Suppose Watson tells people cancer treatment does not work?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** What if the entire corpus of physics is loaded, and Watson concludes that LENR is the superior energy solution for the future of humanity, far more so than hot fusion or fission ? ** What if Watson concludes LENR is a load of baloney? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Suppose Watson tells people cancer treatment does not work?
Just consider, whatever conclusion, other than I don't know, Watson might come to, it will please no one no matter how logical it might be ... or rather seem to be. And rightly so because unless Watson concludes I don't know the question of whether Watson had enough data or the right data or the correct deductive process or fill in your objection would still exist. As has been pointed out many times on this list, today's truth frequently becomes yesterday's lack of understanding. [m] On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Most people would not be surprised, so it's kind of boring. 2013/1/17 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** What if the entire corpus of physics is loaded, and Watson concludes that LENR is the superior energy solution for the future of humanity, far more so than hot fusion or fission ? ** What if Watson concludes LENR is a load of baloney? [mg] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
