Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Guys, this thread has gotten very far off the subject. I request that you rename it and continue. I would really appreciate a discussion concerning tritium associated with Ni-H LENR. Dave We seem to be reaching the limits of our knowledge of tritium and the Ni-H system. Up to this point we've gotten as far as concluding that it is sometimes observed and speculating on what might be going on (e.g., hydrinos, or a kind of tunneling of three protons into one another simultaneously, or, left unmentioned up to this point but my favorite, neutron production). One place you might look for more information is lenr-canr.org. A search for nickel tritium yields 177 results. Not all of these links will be relevant, but I'm sure some of them will be interesting. The more concrete details we have to work with, the more interesting the discussion will be. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/antibiotic-overuse-may-give-bacteria-an-evolutionary-boost/ *Are humans increasing bacterial evolvability?* This subject is more important than religious doctrinaire; it is literally a matter of life or death in this world today. During the time of the Black Death, the intellectual elite burned people at the stake to end the dying and the Pope lived in a circle of fire. What we need most is truth because that truth will save us. If natural selection is wrong, what we need is for people to think about this problem anew and to design experiments to test our new ideas. Time is running out… our chances grow short before the scourge of pestilence is laid hard against us. On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think fallicies render a theory fatally flawed. A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150 years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement. Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math replaces intuition in the art of theory making. harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 21:58 Freitag, 25.Mai 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an eminently social endeavor. Its far worse than Kuhn indicates. He misdiagnoses the problem. Its not, primarily, a problem with pathway dependence in neurological development. Its primarily a problem with financial dependence on political institutions. I wrote about this in an essay titled Yeoman As the Foundation of Scientific Revolutions. James, Eric interesting take, but let me add some remarks: There are considerable differences between a)Italian, b)French, c)British, d)German/Austrian/Swiss, e)American developments of science/technology, and those well play into the arts and other endeavors. See eg Leonardo da Vinci(a), Alesandro Volta(a) , Paracelsus(d), Fraunhofer(d), Alexander v. Humboldt(d), Lavoisier and his wife(b), Benjamin Franklin(e),Joseph Priestley(c), Thomas Newcomen/James Watt(c). In the 18th century it became fashionable for the bourgeois and noble classes to in France and Britain to watch chemical experiments like in a theater. One early case being the 'Magdeburg hemispheres' in 1652. (...Von Guericke's demonstration was performed on 8 May 1654 in front of the Reichstag and the Emperor Ferdinand III in Regensburg.) What I want to stress is, that one needs three aspects for any societal force to take effect: (in this case 'experimentation' aimed at 'discovery') i) persons capable to perform this ii) a public (occasionally including the ruling emperors) interested in that iii) a (use or status) value, ofcourse connected to (ii) To make the story short: Now map this to late 20th/21st century science and technology: It became so complicated and expensive that rarely a a single inventor or creative mind can achieve significant breakthroughs anymore. Think computer chips or genetics or modern cars or astrophysics or modern medicine or even late (financial) capitalism with its growth paradigm. This is a team-play directed by a set of foundational/organizing paradigms. Like in ancient religion those paradigms are controlled by a 'priesthood', eg peer reviewers ,department heads with access to capital inflow and/or power. I agree that Thomas Kuhn is not uptodate anymore and also not Paul Feyerabend (against method/epistemological anarchism), although I somewhat sympathize with him. The reason seems to be clear: Crashing a central paradigm tends to have catastrophic consequences, so 'we' stick even to the wrong paradigm, for a fear of the alternative void. Best example nowadys: the growth paradigm. Everybody in his right mind knows that it is not even simply wrong, but destructive, but nevertheless the deciders stick to it, and 'we' let it happen. Do'nt know who said that: We tend to be directed by what we are used to, not what is true. Sounds about right to me. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
re 'Yeomen' -- Eric and James 2nd take Yeomen, as I understand the term, are a group of people having enough material and educational resources to be 'free thinkers'. The question is: Are these people decisive wrt the advancement of humanity? I think not. They play a certain role, but not more. In the early middle ages it was the church-builders, which advanced the art of empirical construction of large buildings by trial and error. Lots of churches had to be repaired or collapsed altogether. Those 'geniuses' are not known by name but their deeds and their various inventions like the rope-triangle with three knots, one of the most impressive inventions ever in the construction of gothic churches. Plus the proper identification of construction materials. Those were definitely not 'Yeomen'. The creative drives of the churchbuilders were directed by -- the dominant belief -- a drive by the dominant religious elite to fortify power, by summoning all the creative forces of their time in their interest. Simple. Right? Machiavellian strategy, which creative people seem to easily fall prey to. The main driver was societal surplus, which enabled the inventive minds to do their work. This goes back to Stonehenge. Unknown geniuses. The ‘Yeomen’ played their limited role in early modernism, but not a dominant one. It is just that they had a certain amount of leisure, which other classes (sorry) did not have. Two examples to the contrary of the 'Yeomen' view: a) Paracelsus: The founder of modern medicine, was mainly self-educated, and his main trait was a fierce empiricism combined with a humanist impulse: to effectively heal. b) Leonardo: Apart from his genius, one has to mention, that his mother was a slave, married to an establishment figure, a notary. Leonardo prostituted himself to the elite, by devising various advanced weapon-devices. The leisure class, as Thorstein Veblen termed it, actually advanced the fashion of being empirical, and enjoyed the downfall of the noble class, which had nothing substantial to object on this in the 17th/18th century, which culminated in the enlightenment. The noble classes participated in this downfall, by some defaetist insight, that they lost the game, and another one would be established soon: Approx 1780 to 1830. In this timespan the middle nobility aligned with the ascending bourgeois in advancing science and empiricism, the middle nobility gradually accepting defeat. Lavoisier being one prominent example, as said. ...Lavoisier was tried, convicted, and guillotined on 8 May 1794 in Paris, at the age of 50. … (by indictment of Robespierre). Dangerous times. Read Yourself about the background. Sorry to depart from the main thrust of the list by narrating that. But there are some connections, which I consider important, and should not be misinterpreted. To consider LENR as a straightforward cure to all our illnesses seems to me fundamentally misdirected. My practical other ID explores the issue, but is hopefully controlled by my other ID, say Kahneman’s ‘slow thinking’. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: In the early middle ages it was the church-builders, which advanced the art of empirical construction of large buildings by trial and error. Lots of churches had to be repaired or collapsed altogether. Those 'geniuses' are not known by name but their deeds and their various inventions like the rope-triangle with three knots, one of the most impressive inventions ever in the construction of gothic churches. Plus the proper identification of construction materials. Those were definitely not 'Yeomen'. And the construction of large buildings was definitely not a scientific revolution. Two examples to the contrary of the 'Yeomen' view: a) Paracelsus: The founder of modern medicine, was mainly self-educated, and his main trait was a fierce empiricism combined with a humanist impulse: to effectively heal. Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. What irony you would chose this man as a counter example tothe 'Yeoman' view. b) Leonardo: Apart from his genius, one has to mention, that his mother was a slave, married to an establishment figure, a notary. Leonardo prostituted himself to the elite, by devising various advanced weapon-devices. Virtually any means of acquiring financial independence will be subject to characterization as prostitution. The main question is: To what degree does it impinge on one's individual integrity? It is from individual integrity that springs the fruits of a coherent mind.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
___ Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. James, I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. He was driven by his convictions. The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) See Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley spoiled it most of the time. See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of Oracle/Ellison. An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. Add some power plus bullshit theses. Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. Leisure primarily is just that: leisure. It is the interests of the moneyed class of its time, which directs society at large, and its talents in particular. It depends on the societal value system, what to do with it, especially, what those people, having it, think merits them some additional status within their tribe. See eg Bourdieu 'La Distinction' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction Maybe I sound too much like a class warrior for Your taste. I'm not. I am just disgusted by the preferences of our contemporary 'leaders'. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what You are trying to say. Plus: I digress. This is probably utterly uninteresting to the vortex-crowd. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
The definition of Yeoman is at issue. Its modern degeneration has virtually nothing to do with the original notion. Basically there was, once upon a time, recognition of the foundation of civilization -- primarily because civilization had only recently arisen. This is particularly true of northern Europeans who remained, very deliberately, uncivil until late JudeoChristianization. Part of the resistance to civilization is that young lovers cannot nest simply by virtue of the young man forcefully challenging a noble owner of some land and taking land necessary to support a mate and their children together without paying fees. The answer arrived at by wiser men than today's monied class -- men who were involved in building civilization from the ground up rather than coming in and simply taking credit -- was a recognition of homesteads as inviolable. Indeed, this is the origin of the Norse concept of the allodium -- the basis of allodial, as opposed to feudal, law. This all gets back to individual integrity: When a young man is broken by civilization in order to provide for and protect the formation of his family, more is broken than a mere uncivil spirit. In a very real sense, he is alienated from himself -- he is incapable of what you call conviction except in the travesties visited upon his mind by government and religion. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.comwrote: ___ Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. James, I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. He was driven by his convictions. The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) See Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley spoiled it most of the time. See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of Oracle/Ellison. An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. Add some power plus bullshit theses. Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. Leisure primarily is just that: leisure. It is the interests of the moneyed class of its time, which directs society at large, and its talents in particular. It depends on the societal value system, what to do with it, especially, what those people, having it, think merits them some additional status within their tribe. See eg Bourdieu 'La Distinction' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction Maybe I sound too much like a class warrior for Your taste. I'm not. I am just disgusted by the preferences of our contemporary 'leaders'. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what You are trying to say. Plus: I digress. This is probably utterly uninteresting to the vortex-crowd. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I would think the idea that one can take land to support a mate is agricultural notion of identity and integrity. Harry On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of Yeoman is at issue. Its modern degeneration has virtually nothing to do with the original notion. Basically there was, once upon a time, recognition of the foundation of civilization -- primarily because civilization had only recently arisen. This is particularly true of northern Europeans who remained, very deliberately, uncivil until late JudeoChristianization. Part of the resistance to civilization is that young lovers cannot nest simply by virtue of the young man forcefully challenging a noble owner of some land and taking land necessary to support a mate and their children together without paying fees. The answer arrived at by wiser men than today's monied class -- men who were involved in building civilization from the ground up rather than coming in and simply taking credit -- was a recognition of homesteads as inviolable. Indeed, this is the origin of the Norse concept of the allodium -- the basis of allodial, as opposed to feudal, law. This all gets back to individual integrity: When a young man is broken by civilization in order to provide for and protect the formation of his family, more is broken than a mere uncivil spirit. In a very real sense, he is alienated from himself -- he is incapable of what you call conviction except in the travesties visited upon his mind by government and religion. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: ___ Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. James, I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. He was driven by his convictions. The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) See Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley spoiled it most of the time. See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of Oracle/Ellison. An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. Add some power plus bullshit theses. Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. Leisure primarily is just that: leisure. It is the interests of the moneyed class of its time, which directs society at large, and its talents in particular. It depends on the societal value system, what to do with it, especially, what those people, having it, think merits them some additional status within their tribe. See eg Bourdieu 'La Distinction' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Distinction Maybe I sound too much like a class warrior for Your taste. I'm not. I am just disgusted by the preferences of our contemporary 'leaders'. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what You are trying to say. Plus: I digress. This is probably utterly uninteresting to the vortex-crowd. Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
James, thank you for Your sensible comment. I did not know about the term 'allodium'. looking after the term, I read: ... True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. ... As a comment, being 'free' in the continental sense is mostly ascribed to communities, like Nueremberg (Nürnberg), which reads like that: ... In 1219, Frederick II granted the Großen Freiheitsbrief (Great Letter of Freedom), including town rights, Reichsfreiheit (or Imperial immediacy), the privilege to mint coins and an independent customs policy, almost wholly removing the city from the purview of the burgraves. ... So the people there were 'free' in the sense that they were mainly subject to municipial rule. So interspersed in the empire were free cities, famously the italian ones like Venice or Florence or the Hanse-towns from Hamburg up to Riga, and free citizens, mainly trademen, which delegated some of their whealth to the truly creative people. Which is my main point, that it were not the holders of whealth and power, but those they chose as a proxy to their own lack of creativity, which they seemed to be aware of, sort of a division of labor. A different strain would be the monks in the monasteries, which preserved their 'freedom' in their own peculiar manner. I must confess that I have only rudimentary knowledge about the rise of british 'yeomen', which somehow must have been arisen from Oxford and Cambridge (1150 to 1300) , which not simply were holders of power, but men of knowledge. This has been a paneuropean phenomenon, increasingly generating a counterweight to traditional nobility. Anyway, interesting topic. all the best Guenther Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com An: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:42 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR The definition of Yeoman is at issue. Its modern degeneration has virtually nothing to do with the original notion. Basically there was, once upon a time, recognition of the foundation of civilization -- primarily because civilization had only recently arisen. This is particularly true of northern Europeans who remained, very deliberately, uncivil until late JudeoChristianization. Part of the resistance to civilization is that young lovers cannot nest simply by virtue of the young man forcefully challenging a noble owner of some land and taking land necessary to support a mate and their children together without paying fees. The answer arrived at by wiser men than today's monied class -- men who were involved in building civilization from the ground up rather than coming in and simply taking credit -- was a recognition of homesteads as inviolable. Indeed, this is the origin of the Norse concept of the allodium -- the basis of allodial, as opposed to feudal, law. This all gets back to individual integrity: When a young man is broken by civilization in order to provide for and protect the formation of his family, more is broken than a mere uncivil spirit. In a very real sense, he is alienated from himself -- he is incapable of what you call conviction except in the travesties visited upon his mind by government and religion. On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: ___ Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Paracelsus whose motto was: Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself. James, I understand this as a typical statement of a renaissance mind. But: Paracelsus was not a Yeoman. He was driven by his convictions. The same could be said by Erasmus, Gutenberg, Luther or Duerer. (sorry for the bias. Lets add Cervantes, who spent a significant part of his life in prison.) See Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other Cervantes was more reflective, BEFORE Descartes, btw. This is the 1500's, an axis time, as they say. My point is that there is no necessary connection of being a 'Yeoman' and being a constituent of advancing societal matters, being them scientific or other. If one associates them with leisure and material resources, they utterley spoiled it most of the time. See the british 'Yeomen' in the countryside nowadays. They rent their castles, or as London-city billionaires own a football-club but do not sponsor a research institution, not even talking about doing creative research on their own , as eg Lavoisier did. Nowadays we have young Facebook/Zuckerberg following the footsteps of Oracle/Ellison. An easy role-model. Make tons of money. Buy a big yacht. Some fancy houses. Add some power plus bullshit theses. Give the finger to everybody else. Here you are. Apple/Jobs ist just too difficult. Leisure
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I would think the idea that one can take land to support a mate is agricultural notion of identity and integrity. Is sexual notion of identity and integrity. You know nothing of animal behavior.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.comwrote: James, thank you for Your sensible comment. I did not know about the term 'allodium'. looking after the term, I read: ... True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple . ... A better definition: allodium [əˈləʊdɪəm], *allod* [ˈælɒd] *n* *pl* *-lodia* [-ˈləʊdɪə], *-lods* (Historical Terms) *History* lands held in absolute ownership, free from such obligations as rent or services due to an overlord Also *alodium*
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Guys, this thread has gotten very far off the subject. I request that you rename it and continue. I would really appreciate a discussion concerning tritium associated with Ni-H LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com Cc: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 26, 2012 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: James, thank you for Your sensible comment. I did not know about the term 'allodium'. looking after the term, I read: ... True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. ... A better definition: allodium [əˈləʊdɪəm], allod [ˈælɒd] n pl -lodia [-ˈləʊdɪə], -lods (Historical Terms) History lands held in absolute ownership, free from such obligations as rent or services due to an overlord Also alodium
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I would think the idea that one can take land to support a mate is agricultural notion of identity and integrity. Is sexual notion of identity and integrity. You know nothing of animal behavior. I know that some mates are impossible to please. ;-) harry
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an eminently social endeavor. Its far worse than Kuhn indicates. He misdiagnoses the problem. Its not, primarily, a problem with pathway dependence in neurological development. Its primarily a problem with financial dependence on political institutions. I wrote about this in an essay titled Yeoman As the Foundation of Scientific Revolutionshttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2007/01/yeomen-as-foundation-of-scientific.html . The reason this is far worse than Kuhn indicates is that it is entirely conceivable that such financial dependence could enslave generation after generation of scientists. Moreover, it is an unnecessary indictment of age-related cognitive structure to adopt Kuhn's hypothesis as is evidenced, for example, by E. O. Wilson's late age revolution in his thinking about eusociality in contradiction to his claim to popular fame in sociobiology. Indeed, cold fusion itself indicates that quite a few folks of advanced age -- particularly those who are rendered financially independent by tenure or retirement -- are more capable of objective evaluation of the evidence than are those who are pursuing careers sensitive to political nuance. I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The reason this is far worse than Kuhn indicates is that it is entirely conceivable that such financial dependence could enslave generation after generation of scientists. I don't know about generations. Peter Hagelstein told me the problem has gotten much worse in the last 10 years or so. He says much of the problem is caused by micromanagement from Washington. Much of that problem, in turn, is caused by misplaced fear that scientists are committing fraud. Restrictive laws and excessively tight oversight has been put in place. This is partly caused by conservative opposition to scientific conclusion such as global warming. Since the 1970s, conservatives have become sharply critical of many aspects of science, especially evolution and global warming. Before that they were as supportive as liberals were. It would have been inconceivable for someone like Richard Nixon to oppose the teaching of evolution, whereas every major Republican candidate in the last two elections has paid lip service to creationism. See: Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010 http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/2/167.full Hagelstein also cited corrupt activities among leading academic decision makers, such as leading scientists who do peer review, recommend against publication, and then steal the ideas they blocked from publication. Tom Passell described leading scientists who publicly lashed out against cold fusion in 1989 and 1990 while secretly applying for research grants from EPRI to study it. I'm sure that sort of thing is a problem but it always has been. Backstabbing, betrayal, plagiarism, stealing credit and so on have been common in academic science since it began in the 17th century. In my opinion, generally speaking, and compared to people in other walks of life with similar jobs such as programmers and engineers, I think academic scientists are bunch of disreputable, unethical scheming lowlifes. I am serious. They have a public reputation for being saintly, other-worldly people with frizzy hair halos like Einstein. They do not deserve it. Inventors such as Edison and Rossi are in it for the money, and they make no bones about it. That is refreshing. You know where you stand with them. If you invest in them keep a tight grip on your shares. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I find your attempt to equate Darwin with Newton rather amusing. If there ever was a field of pseudoscience, that is beholden to and extremely malleable to political pressure; it is the field that Darwin created with his swiss-cheese theory. While Newton created whole fields of legitimate science, Darwin and his science of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution is a quintessential example of how a legiitimate field of study has been turned into a mockery of political conformance. My beef is not with Darwin, but with how people turned the science of Darwin into a religion of humanism. Whenever someone proposes a theory, many times they come up with a proposition on how to falsily their theory. Well, Darwin came up with how to falsify his theory of Darwinian Evolution. Here is what he said about his theory and how to falsify it. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. And that organ you're using to read this post is another. There must be dozens, even hundreds of organs, processes, systems in your body that could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. By this criteria, Darwinian Evolution is FALSIFIED, and yet, anyone who questions Darwinian Evolution is automatically involved with pseudo-science and is labelled a pseudoscientist. Just as Cold Fusion is automatically labeled a pseudoscience. So my point is: If you are wondering why people like Huzienga, Parks, Zimmerman oppose Cold Fusion out of hand, just remember that if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, there is a Huzienga, Parks and Zimmerman in you. (I'll be docking away from your shots now.) Jojo I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
This link provides a nice concise summary of evolutionary thought from the Greeks to the victorian age. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml Darwin's account of evolution is over emphasized, but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Although the link says Lamarckian evolution has been discredited, there is some truth in Lamarck's account as work on epigenetics is revealing. Anyway, I think evolution is driven by many causes and Darwinian natural selection is just one of the causes. Harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I find your attempt to equate Darwin with Newton rather amusing. If there ever was a field of pseudoscience, that is beholden to and extremely malleable to political pressure; it is the field that Darwin created with his swiss-cheese theory. While Newton created whole fields of legitimate science, Darwin and his science of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution is a quintessential example of how a legiitimate field of study has been turned into a mockery of political conformance. My beef is not with Darwin, but with how people turned the science of Darwin into a religion of humanism. Whenever someone proposes a theory, many times they come up with a proposition on how to falsily their theory. Well, Darwin came up with how to falsify his theory of Darwinian Evolution. Here is what he said about his theory and how to falsify it. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. And that organ you're using to read this post is another. There must be dozens, even hundreds of organs, processes, systems in your body that could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. By this criteria, Darwinian Evolution is FALSIFIED, and yet, anyone who questions Darwinian Evolution is automatically involved with pseudo-science and is labelled a pseudoscientist. Just as Cold Fusion is automatically labeled a pseudoscience. So my point is: If you are wondering why people like Huzienga, Parks, Zimmerman oppose Cold Fusion out of hand, just remember that if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, there is a Huzienga, Parks and Zimmerman in you. (I'll be docking away from your shots now.) Jojo I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think fallicies render a theory fatally flawed. A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150 years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement. Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math replaces intuition in the art of theory making. harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
[Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
This may be too open-ended and nebulous to present at this juncture - but the evidence for small amounts of tritium in Ni-H LERN is substantial. Thanks to Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell from bringing this detail clearly into focus recently - because for one overriding consideration- given the rarity of background 3H - this occurrence of it where it should not be seen ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES THE REALITY OF LENR. But all of us knew that, and need no reminder... at least on this forum. Should we attempt to rub it in elsewhere? As mentioned, this is partly a function of being able to locate and precisely identify extremely small amounts of the isotope - but that is not a minus... if it were not being made in some quantity, it would not show up at all. What are the implications of the following ? 1) Tritium appearance is absolutely not in question in the reaction, but does not always occur, so what is the key to it being there? 2) No necessity for excess heat to find tritium. In fact many reports find T with no heat. 3) In some cases, what can be called anomalous cooling is seen (as in Ahern's experiments) 4) When excess heat is clearly present, tritium formation can be somewhere around 10^5 times too low to account for it. What is the highest correlation? 5) Claytor sees tritium with lithium, which is easier to explain but most reports are with potassium carbonate. Why K2CO3 instead of KOH? 6) No public evidence that the rate of tritium production can be commercialized, even if a price of $1000,000 per gram is guaranteed. Your input on other implications of this will be duly noted - and reported in a separate post. We can pretty much state that the main common denominator for all of the above is Quantum Mechanics - in the sense of low probability tunneling. Which means that QM tunneling has allowed some small amount of tritium to form but is it new physics? IOW - There is no guarantee that it is not a new kind of tritium reaction (not necessarily D+D - T+p). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I should credit Eric Walker's persistence, as well, in this mini tritium revival - especially in digging up old papers from the early nineties where the isotope is mentioned. There are many other papers as well, some of them not available on LENR/CANR. Fusion Technology is a good resource for good papers from this era which are not easily available otherwise. In retrospect, this is the one major point that should have been hammered into the skeptical mentality: you cannot explain away LENR unless you can explain away the tritium - even if it only occurs in a few instances. Maybe we missed a golden opportunity by failing to emphasize this point ad nauseum. Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so certain and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low reproducibility. _ From: Jones Beene This may be too open-ended and nebulous to present at this juncture - but the evidence for small amounts of tritium in Ni-H LERN is substantial. Thanks to Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell from bringing this detail clearly into focus recently - because for one overriding consideration- given the rarity of background 3H - this occurrence of it where it should not be seen ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES THE REALITY OF LENR. But all of us knew that, and need no reminder... at least on this forum. Should we attempt to rub it in elsewhere? As mentioned, this is partly a function of being able to locate and precisely identify extremely small amounts of the isotope - but that is not a minus... if it were not being made in some quantity, it would not show up at all. What are the implications of the following ? 1) Tritium appearance is absolutely not in question in the reaction, but does not always occur, so what is the key to it being there? 2) No necessity for excess heat to find tritium. In fact many reports find T with no heat. 3) In some cases, what can be called anomalous cooling is seen (as in Ahern's experiments) 4) When excess heat is clearly present, tritium formation can be somewhere around 10^5 times too low to account for it. What is the highest correlation? 5) Claytor sees tritium with lithium, which is easier to explain but most reports are with potassium carbonate. Why K2CO3 instead of KOH? 6) No public evidence that the rate of tritium production can be commercialized, even if a price of $1000,000 per gram is guaranteed. Your input on other implications of this will be duly noted - and reported in a separate post. We can pretty much state that the main common denominator for all of the above is Quantum Mechanics - in the sense of low probability tunneling. Which means that QM tunneling has allowed some small amount of tritium to form but is it new physics? IOW - There is no guarantee that it is not a new kind of tritium reaction (not necessarily D+D - T+p). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so certain and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low reproducibility. I have often said this, but the skeptics disagree. They find reasons to doubt the results. Tritium has another advantage over heat. Some of the calorimetry in this field has been dubious, with amateur do-it-yourself instruments. Whereas I think most of the tritium studies were done by experts at BARC, Los Alamos and TAMU. They use professional grade off-the-shelf instruments. I suppose there is no such thing as a do-it-yourself tritium detector. In discussions with skeptics I have sometimes pointed out that the people in the BARC Safety Division who detected tritium must be good at their jobs because, as they themselves said: if we could not detect we would be dead. I have also pointed out that the people who detected tritium at Los Alamos are also impressive, such as Jalbert. See p. 13.3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf QUOTE: Roland A. Jalbert *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years *for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ). *Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton) After I describe the people at BARC and Jalbert, the discussion ends. I do not recall any instances in which the skeptics responded. However, in other venues and discussions they continue to say they do not believe the tritium results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: After I describe the people at BARC and Jalbert, the discussion ends. I do not recall any instances in which the skeptics responded. However, in other venues and discussions they continue to say they do not believe the tritium results. Safety in numbers.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I wrote: I have often said this, but the skeptics disagree. They find reasons to doubt the results. There is a legitimate reason to doubt results with heavy water. Some heavy water does have tritium in it to start with. This can be concentrated by electrolysis. Experts such as Storms know that, and took it into account, as you see in their papers. There is no significant tritium in ordinary water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I should credit Eric Walker's persistence, as well, in this mini tritium revival - especially in digging up old papers from the early nineties where the isotope is mentioned. I failed to give Ed Storms credit for the references -- they're all from a single table in his Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. He and Jed and the original investigators did all the legwork for this thread. John Bockris almost lost his position at Texas AM on account of skepticism of tritium results that he and a graduate student reported (not in an Ni-H system, if I recall). That suggests that tritium is indeed a threatening result to people in the know. Gary Taubes wrote a piece for Science on the AM affair that strongly hinted at fraud. At one point Bockris had what he felt was ironclad evidence that tritium was evolving in a similar experiment that he wanted to show to some of his colleagues, but by then he had become a pariah of sorts, and nobody would take up his offer. I'm hardly an expert here, but tritium seems like a great demonstration that something weird is going on for the reasons you mention. The extent to which a person takes note of it is perhaps a measure of how interested he or she is in setting aside prior assumptions about nuclear physics and considering the possibility that something new might be happening. But when you bring together all of the weirdnesses -- the tritium, the helium, the transmutations, the excess heat, etc. -- there must be a cloying effect. No doubt there's some conditional probability for LENR given these things that can be provided by Bayesian statistics that is pretty high, such that it would be unscientific to discount its possibility. The main alternative explanation, that the people making the fuss are altogether delusional and are engaged in something akin to astrology appears to be easier for most scientists to start out with. Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an eminently social endeavor. Eric
