subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Asked \& Answered"

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing
 website.

 ***Not normally.  It's right wing politics.  Most Vorts seem to be left
 wing.


I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or
conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end
of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

In detail here:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very conservative
and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend to be on the
authoritarian end of the scale.

John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the
authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end,
because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no
compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no
apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his
colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf



  I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no
 point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no
 interest in learning the truth.

 ***I don't mind, for a while.  I see it as documenting the dialog.  But
 the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at
 FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog.


That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme
ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that
you have preserved this text.



  The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have
 produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
 continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months.

 ***Got links?  I'll post them.


This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18:

Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments
Run at IMRA Europe.* in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute
of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Jones Beene

Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative,
open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the
authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor
Altemeyer. LOL.

I had previously thought of it more as cynicism towards politics... instead
of left or right - and to be blunt, the present administration has been no
less authoritarian than the previous one (in fact, due to leaks about NSA
spying and DHS - possibly more authoritarian, rather than less). 

Curiously... for the name-phreaks amongst us, the German word meier, from
which the surname Meyer derives, was a status name for a landowner or
overseer...


From: Jed Rothwell 

Kevin O'Malley wrote:
 
This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a
depressing website.
***Not normally.  It's right wing politics.  Most Vorts seem
to be left wing.

I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not
liberal or conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at
the low end of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

In detail here:


http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or
very conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people
tend to be on the authoritarian end of the scale.

John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end
of the authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end,
because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no
compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no
apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his
colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf

 
I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure
there is no point to arguing with people who will not do their homework.
They have no interest in learning the truth.
***I don't mind, for a while.  I see it as documenting the
dialog.  But the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the
moderators at FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the
dialog.

That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at
both extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It
is good that you have preserved this text.

 
The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion
cells have produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months.
***Got links?  I'll post them. 

This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18:

Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9
Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan:
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

- Jed

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Axil Axil

I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria
for the existence of the LENR reaction.



Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR.
This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its
preparation and evaluation are done with care.



In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other
onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected
but transmutation can and with great accuracy.



Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event.



Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to
transmutation from excess heat.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Peter Gluck

Dear Axil here are alternatives for transmutations
but no for heat energy. From its birth CF was considered  an energy source.
Energy is desired, transmutations rarely as for destruction of radioactive
waste.
Peter


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria
 for the existence of the LENR reaction.



 Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR.
 This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its
 preparation and evaluation are done with care.



 In many experiments done with spark discharge, exploding foils and other
 onetime short duration experimental events, excess heat cannot be detected
 but transmutation can and with great accuracy.



 Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event.



 Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to
 transmutation from excess heat.




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Sunil Shah

Fully agree!  In addition, heat is macroscopic result that doesn't say much 
about the why-what-and-where of the reactions. If the reactions are few there 
will be no heat measured, but the reactions are nonetheless happening! Good 
grief, we already know measuring heat is difficult..

What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts of 
the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are!  I want 
to liken this to a system of N equations, with N unknowns. And we do KNOW 
exactly what happens when a nucleus A is hit by a projectile p.  Hasn't someone 
stuck these transmutation percentages into a computer together with ALL known 
A + p = B + p nuclear reactions, already!  This would produce a number of 
more (or less) likely chains of reactions, that together yield the EXACT mass 
spectrum of the transmutation products.

(There are some downsides to this approach of course. Heat is measured now, 
transmutation products are measured later. For transmutation we need to 
subtract effects of external ionizing radiation (cosmic, for example), and 
natural isotope spread of the bulk material, and uncertainties due to 
impurities.)

.s

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:20:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked  Answered
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



I cannot understand this obsession with
excess heat as the sole criteria for the existence of the LENR reaction.

 

Transmutation of elements is undisputable
proof of the existence of LENR. This transmutation can be determined with
extreme accuracy if its preparation and evaluation are done with care.

 

In many experiments done with spark
discharge, exploding foils and other onetime short duration experimental events,
excess heat cannot be detected but transmutation can and with great accuracy.

 

Transmutation is the essence and crux
of a nuclear event.

 

Cold fusion apologists should switch
their line of argument to transmutation from excess heat.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 I cannot understand this obsession with excess heat as the sole criteria
 for the existence of the LENR reaction.


You cannot understand it because it does not exist. No one is obsessed
with excess heat. However, as Martin Fleischmann said heat is the principal
signature of the reaction. He meant in comparison to other nuclear
reactions. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.



 Transmutation of elements is undisputable proof of the existence of LENR.
 This transmutation can be determined with extreme accuracy if its
 preparation and evaluation are done with care.


Not according to David Kidwell. He thinks the evidence for transmutation is
actually contamination. Transmutation into radioactive tritium is easy to
detect, but transmutation into nonradioactive species with odd isotopic
ratios is difficult to detect. Transmutation from deuterium to helium is
very difficult to detect, because helium is ubiquitous.



 Transmutation is the essence and crux of a nuclear event.


Yes, but it is very difficult to detect, because nuclear reactions produce
millions of times more heat per gram of fuel than chemical reactions do. So
you have to look for nanograms or picograms of material, and you do not
even know what you are looking for.



 Cold fusion apologists should switch their line of argument to
 transmutation from excess heat.


There is no such thing as a cold fusion apologist. Transmutation evidence
is not convincing for most people. The excess heat is convincing to those
who understand the laws of thermodynamics and the limits of chemistry.
Apparently no one at Wikipedia, *Nature* or the American Physical Society
understands these things.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative,
 open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the
 authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor
 Altemeyer. LOL.


Why is this funny? This is social science research. Who else other than a
professor does that kind of research, or writes books about it? It costs a
great deal of money to do this research, and there is a very limited market
for it. (I know that because my late mother was a leading social science
researcher.)

The fact that a professor said this is not evidence that it is wrong, or
risible (or LOL in webspeak).

I think Altemeyer presents good evidence for his claim.

To clarify, there are many exceptions to the correlation between
conservative views and high authoritarianism, as Altemeyer himself points
out. For example, libertarians tend to be conservative about economics but
low on the authoritarian scale. Liberal busybodies who favor politically
correct speech may be high on the authoritarian scale.

Many people have a mixture of high and low scale authoritarian tendencies,
depending on the subject and on various extraneous factors. For example, a
person might be in favor of legalizing pot while he opposes abortion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:


 If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the
 reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring
 heat is difficult..


It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of
material mixed in with grams of contamination.

Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it
produces.



 What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good
 accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the
 reactions are!


Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access
to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of
money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by
superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other
labs.

If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't
have the equipment, the expertise or the funding.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Jones Beene

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

 

Nice insight. You got that exactly right: vorticians (and creative,
open-minded people in general) seem to be at the low end of the
authoritarianism scale, as defined by... who else? one Professor
Altemeyer. LOL.

 

Why is this funny? 

 

. well, I went on (to try) to explain the punage . but it must have been a
bit too arcane. To wit:

 

Curiously. for the name-phreaks amongst us, the German word meier, from
which the surname Meyer derives, was a status name for a landowner or
overseer.

 

Thus, Professor Altemeyer would loosely translate as high level overseer
or . ta da: authoritarian and this is reflected in his chosen work, or
specialty - authoritarianism.

 

There is a fascinating sub-genre of puns called names that work . made
semi-famous by journalist Herb Caen. you know . a Jazzman named Strayhorn,
or an evangelist named Sunday, or a baseball player named Homer.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Axil Axil

If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't
have the equipment, the expertise or the funding.

How to do a cheap experiment demonstrating LENR through transmutation.
Build a spectroscope using trash.

http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cd_spectroscope/spectroscope.html
Buy some ultrapure carbon electrodes.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-graphite-probes-carbon-electrodes-atomic-absorption-spectrometry-AA-/230944043453?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item35c55671bd
This listing is for 4 new graphite probes/ carbon electrodes. They measure
4 inches (10 cm) long and .25 inches (0.6 cm) wide. This lot has been
tested for presence of metals with the following results (in ppm) Silicon:
1 Aluminum: 0 Iron: 0 Magnesium: 0 Calcium: 0 Boron: 0 others: 0 If not
satisfied for ANY reason, send it back within 60 days for a refund. Check
out my other listings since I combine shipping. Thank you for your interest.

Any pure element will due as an electrode material: tungsten, iron, etc.

Make some ultrapure water and put it in a bottle.

Pass current through the ultrapure electrodes as it sparks in the ultrapure
water.

Take a picture of the spectrum of the light from the arc emitted from the
electrodes.
Take subsequent pictures of the arc light at regular intervals until new
spectral lines from transmuted elements appear.

What we are looking for is a CHANGE in the spectral lines not absolute
values.

QED WHEN CHANGE IS FOUND, transmutation proved along with LENR.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:

If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the
reactions are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring
heat is difficult..

It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of
material mixed in with grams of contamination.

Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it
produces.

What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good
accounts of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the
reactions are!

Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have
access to the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal
of money. Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by
superannuated professors. They are shut out of most universities and other
labs.

If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't
have the equipment, the expertise or the funding.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Sunil Shah

Hmm, you won't be measuring transmutation products by weighing them. Also, 
pure materials are more pure than you suggest 
(http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?interface=Allterm=nickel+powderfocus=productmode=match
 partialmax). (In any case, the spectrum of a reference sample is just 
subtracted from the transmutated spectrum.) Also, I am assuming it is 
completely feasible to buy some atom mass spectroscopy service off a lab or Uni 
without it costing an astronomical amount.

If the setup is advantageously configured you will get lots of heat (atom 
bomb for example), but if you were blindfolded you will get lots, some or 
none(tm).  The latter three all have transmutations occurring.  None(tm) means 
no heat, but with transmutation occurring. There also exists a result of 
none(nout) which means no heat and NO LENR.  The whole point of this is the 
importance of deducing which reactions are occurring, to help us find our way 
to the advantageous configuration (lots of heat). (Advantageous if you're 
interested in heat).

.s
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:57:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked  Answered
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:

 If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions 
are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is 
difficult..



It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of 
material mixed in with grams of contamination.
Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces.

  What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts 
of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are!


Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to 
the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. 
Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated 
professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs.


If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have 
the equipment, the expertise or the funding.
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Thus, Professor “Altemeyer” would loosely translate as “high level
 overseer” or … ta da: “authoritarian” and this is reflected in his chosen
 work, or specialty - authoritarianism.


Ah. You should tell him. See what he says. He is a funny guy.




 There is a fascinating sub-genre of puns called “names that work” … made
 semi-famous by journalist Herb Caen… you know … a Jazzman named Strayhorn,
 or an evangelist named Sunday, or a baseball player named Homer…


As in the Japanese astronaut Akihito Hoshide. Hoshide (星出) means the stars
come out or it could mean go out to the stars.

Or the Japanese news cameraman Hiroki Gomi who picked up an exploded bomb
after the war in 2003. It exploded in the airport in Jordan, killing one
and injuring others. In Japanese the family name is first, so that's Gomi
Hiroki (五味宏基) which sounds a lot like is willing to pick up trash (gomi
hirou ki).

I read a strange book once that claimed Churchill was a stable conservative
mellow fellow like his name, and Hitler was abrupt and violent like his
name.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread Sunil Shah

I had the opportunity to participate in some mass spectroscopy experiments 
while at Uni. The method was based on having a whisker of the material you want 
to test, at a high voltage potential. The point of the whisker was only atoms 
wide.  You pulse the high voltage, and this leads to the outmost atoms being 
boiled off and pulled towards a screen where you could actually see in image 
corresponding to the atomic structure of the tip.  I can't remember how the 
masses were determined, but being ionized I suppose the atoms were accelerated 
through a magnetic field, with the resulting bend radius corresponding to mass.

Or thereabouts *lol*

Btw, Bockris sent lots of samples off to measure mass distribution after 
transmutation.
.s

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:05:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked  Answered
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have 
the equipment, the expertise or the funding.
How to do a cheap experiment demonstrating LENR through transmutation.
Build a spectroscope using trash.
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/cd_spectroscope/spectroscope.html
Buy some ultrapure carbon electrodes.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-graphite-probes-carbon-electrodes-atomic-absorption-spectrometry-AA-/230944043453?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0hash=item35c55671bd
This listing is for 4 new graphite probes/ carbon electrodes. They measure 4 
inches (10 cm) long and .25 inches (0.6 cm) wide. This lot has been tested for 
presence of metals with the following results (in ppm) Silicon: 1 Aluminum: 0 
Iron: 0 Magnesium: 0 Calcium: 0 Boron: 0 others: 0 If not satisfied for ANY 
reason, send it back within 60 days for a refund. Check out my other listings 
since I combine shipping. Thank you for your interest.

Any pure element will due as an electrode material: tungsten, iron, etc.
Make some ultrapure water and put it in a bottle.
Pass current through the ultrapure electrodes as it sparks in the ultrapure 
water.

Take a picture of the spectrum of the light from the arc emitted from the 
electrodes.Take subsequent pictures of the arc light at regular intervals until 
new spectral lines from transmuted elements appear.


What we are looking for is a CHANGE in the spectral lines not absolute values.

QED WHEN CHANGE IS FOUND,  transmutation proved along with LENR.




On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:


 If the reactions are few there will be no heat measured, but the reactions 
are nonetheless happening! Good grief, we already know measuring heat is 
difficult..




It is a lot easier than measuring isotopic shifts in picogram samples of 
material mixed in with grams of contamination.
Bear in mind that radioactivity was first discovered by the heat it produces.


  What I find a disturbing though, is that despite having pretty good accounts 
of the constituent nuclei, nobody can figure out what the reactions are!



Experts tell me they cannot figure this out because they do not have access to 
the instruments they need. These instruments costs a great deal of money. 
Barrels of money. Cold fusion research is done on a shoestring by superannuated 
professors. They are shut out of most universities and other labs.



If people could measure transmutations, believe me, they would. They don't have 
the equipment, the expertise or the funding.
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-06 Thread James Bowery

Until people are sorted into governments that test their social theories,
the Enlightenment will not have penetrated the social sciences, including
political science.  Only when people are sorted into governments that test
their social theories will we have anything like true empirical support for
public policies that, currently, are imposed uniformly on vast populations.

This Enlightenment model is authoritarian in one sense -- in that it
excludes people from environments that are testing social theories other
than theirs.  This is where the 10th Amendment Movement gets smeared as
authoritarian.  However, if one compares that brand of authority with the
brand of authority that imposes social theories from the Federal government
-- particularly since the New Deal -- one can see that we're dealing with
left-wing authoritarians far more than right-wing authoritarians.



On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing
 website.

 ***Not normally.  It's right wing politics.  Most Vorts seem to be left
 wing.


 I think that most Vorts are not left or right wing, and not liberal or
 conservative. I think they are scientific and that puts them at the low end
 of the authoritarianism scale, as defined by Prof. Altemeyer:

 http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

 In detail here:

 http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

 A person can be politically liberal yet authoritarian, or very
 conservative and authoritarian. Generally speaking conservative people tend
 to be on the authoritarian end of the scale.

 John Bockris was politically conservative but at the low end of the
 authoritarianism scale. Most good scientists cluster at the low end,
 because it encourages free inquiry and an open mind. Bockris had no
 compunction about trying to do classical medieval style alchemy. He made no
 apologies. He described in a matter-of-fact tone the way one of his
 colleagues doing that ended up in prison. See p. 31:

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf



  I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no
 point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no
 interest in learning the truth.

 ***I don't mind, for a while.  I see it as documenting the dialog.  But
 the reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at
 FR started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog.


 That is typical authoritarian behavior. As I said, people at both extreme
 ends of the political spectrum tend to do things like that. It is good that
 you have preserved this text.



  The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have
 produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
 continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months.

 ***Got links?  I'll post them.


 This is the one I cited during my lunchtime talk at ICCF18:

 Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. *Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments
 Run at IMRA Europe.* in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
 Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New
 Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute
 of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

It's either measurement error or fraud.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3098613/posts?page=12#12

To: *ZX12R*

That position would be more likely than fusion achieved with low voltage.
***Well, that’s fascinating. Since the PF Anomalous Heat Effect has been
replicated more than 14,700 times, that requires that many links in your
conspiracy chain. One might as well believe that there were 1400 assassins
firing on JFK and the doctors, police, bystanders, and press were all in on
the conspiracy to hide the HUGE conspiracy. Here, let me fill the bill to
buy you a tinfoil hat.

My real guess is that there is no anomalous heat. Just poorly trained
scientists pretending to be experimentalists and not knowing how to measure
nanoscopic changes in temperature measurement.
***Oh, cool. I like this one better because it can be addressed with
mathematics of probability. Assuming someone who’s doing electrochemistry
experiments isn’t a complete 100% dufus, the chances of error in each
experiment (knowing that there’s tons of scolding for those who would make
such a mistake, as already seen), would generously be 1/3.

Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
mathematical definition of IMPOSSIBLE is if something has a chance of
10^-50. The chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in
replication with the 1 in 3 experiments, to be utterly magnanimous to your
postulation. So for the errors/noise to account for the 14,700
replications, the chances would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000, a
whopping, gigantic, HUMUNGOUS four thousand Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS
OF MAGNITUDE less than impossible. I tell you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels
of impossible to be “conservative” with the numbers, that is 4400 orders of
magnitude less than impossible.

And furthermore, there are people who are EXPERTS in determining
MEASurement error — they get paid big bucks to get rid of it. National
Instruments. Here’s what the
Experts in MEASurement have to say about measurement error causing all this
excitement: NO WAY.

National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing
website.

***Not normally. It's right wing politics. Most Vorts seem to be left
wing.

I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no
point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no
interest in learning the truth.

***I don't mind, for a while. I see it as documenting the dialog. But the
reason why I started posting exchanges here is that the moderators at FR
started pulling threads entirely, getting rid of ALL the dialog. It's
bizarre. In the early days of FR there were huge flamewars, threads about
Iran-Contra conspiracies chemtrails Vince Foster windups and all kinds
of stuff. So why all of a sudden is there this concern about how FR
looks? Especially when there's so much real scientific evidence (like
those 14,700 replications) that lends itself to the debate? Something
doesn't add up, and since my purpose was to document the dialog, that's
what I'm doing here.

I think it is better to seek out people who are friendly toward cold
fusion, and who want to learn about it. Fortunately, thousands of such
people visit LENR-CANR every week. So I think the way to make progress is
to write good papers and upload them. Really good papers belong in
Biberian's journal, which is published by CMNS, and copied to LENR-CANR.org
and maybe to other sites.

***Sure, but what is a layman supposed to do to promote the scientific
investigation of cold fusion? The article I wrote was about how I made
money at it, and it was greeted with a yawn.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37540.html

I've also tried to contact Hydrofusion to set up a demo plant in Sweden --
LENR powered Hot Tubs in Sweden, as a schtick. No response.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/06/15/psstt-want-an-e-cat-lenr-generator-for-free/

I've tried to get hired by Rossi, even Infinia corp knowing that Stirling
Cycle engines are likely to go in big with LENR. They went out of
business.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prnewswire.com%2Fnews-releases%2Finfinia-corporation-implements-voluntary-chapter-11-petition-seeks-offers-225236832.htmlei=5O6gUqneKJfgoASdzYKAAwusg=AFQjCNHcNjkpxB1uNuBQHaSLZ2KLpNJnAgsig2=E0ZL_BonlRCZxYxi2XEDgg

I am glad that Kevin went to the trouble to preserve this exchange. We
should file away copies of things like this from time to time, for future
historians. They will see what we were up against. In the past, after
scientific disputes were settled, I suppose much of the losing arguments
were lost.

***That is my primary purpose in setting up this Asked Answered thread.
As usual, you see the big picture and the value of it. If you had not set
up Lenr-canr.org, I would have done that.

The latest message in this exchange is more of the same:

Why won’t you tell people your “published data” won’t heat a teakettle?

The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have
produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months.

***Got links? I'll post them.

That would be the answer, but I see no point to posting it.

***I'll post it. But I've noticed in the past that as the Internet gets
scrubbed, links go dry. So it's likely that I'll be posting articles
wholesale. By the way, in the past I have engaged in this behavior and
been chastised for it due to copyright issues manufactured by someone who
was mining current links to make money on advertising.

Incidentally, for people who are looking for introductory material, some
of the documents I recommend are here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263

Scroll down to Papers for the general reader

- Jed

***Thanks for all you do, Jed. If you find yourself in Silicon Valley
(and I'm gainfully employed) I'll take you out to dinner. You can contact
me at Four Oh Eight, 460 Fihive Seheven Oh Seheven.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-02 Thread Kevin O'Malley

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62

What is amazing to me is that it’s OBVIOUSly an inductive pursuit right now
to figure out LENR, otherwise WE WOULD BE BUYING THEM. But skeptopaths
come onto inductive threads like this and act like their  post is the
end-all, be-all that answers all questions: I’ll believe it when I can buy
it. It simply adds ZERO substance to the investigation. It is a form of
trolling, because you add in all kinds of snarky comments along the way.

Do you log onto other inductive threads the same way? Do you DEMAND to know
who’s going to win the 2014 elections? Do you log onto those threads and
say, “I’ll deal with this guy when he’s president, until then you all are
all just wasting your time.” No. Because such behavior is obvious trolling.
And if you DID post such nonsense, everyone would know you are a fool. But
here, you act like your foolishness is some kind of virtue.

It’s totally ridiculous. You can’t even answer one simple question about an
established scientific fact in the number of times this effect has been
replicated. You are a FOOL. And you can’t even see it.

62 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62 posted
on *Mon 02 Dec 2013 07:07:40 PM PST* by Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/


http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/


On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:



 I don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the device, nor
 personally ‘tested’ it.
 ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot
 fusion. You haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings,
 but you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such a
 standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW



 When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it.  (Or
 various versions of technology).

 ***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot
 fusion. Where is our hot-fusion flying car or jet pack?  Why is controlled
 hot-fusion always 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years?

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-12-02 Thread Harvey Norris

Perhaps this thread has deeper meanings then anyone realizes. I have been 
dealing with certain observations for a while and digesting them. Putting them 
in a format for observation. Trying to understand things that seem to have 
little or no meaning. Then later they seem to have greater meaning. An 
inductive pursuit? Yes indeed. Words can have two meanings. I will make more 
comments later. Just to appear totally insane let us suppose God is the source 
of vibrations. We put up certain instruments to detect these vibrations. But 
our instruments give us different answers. Which is the correct answer and why 
does that happen? I shouldn't be posting about this right now so I will retire 
until I can make my case. HDN


 
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/



On Monday, December 2, 2013 10:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 
wrote:
 
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62
What is amazing to me is that it’s OBVIOUSly an inductive pursuit 
right now to figure out LENR, otherwise WE WOULD BE BUYING THEM. But 
skeptopaths  come onto inductive threads like this and act like their  post is 
the end-all, be-all that answers all questions: I’ll 
believe it when I can buy it. It simply adds ZERO substance to the 
investigation. It is a form of trolling, because you add in all kinds of snarky 
comments along the way.
Do you log onto other inductive threads the same way? Do you DEMAND 
to know who’s going to win the 2014 elections? Do you log onto those 
threads and say, “I’ll deal with this guy when he’s president, until 
then you all are all just wasting your time.” No. Because such behavior 
is obvious trolling. And if you DID post such nonsense, everyone would 
know you are a fool. But here, you act like your foolishness is some 
kind of virtue.
It’s totally ridiculous. You can’t even answer one simple question 
about an established scientific fact in the number of times this effect 
has been replicated. You are a FOOL. And you can’t even see it.

62 posted on Mon 02 Dec 2013 07:07:40 PM PST by Kevmo 






On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

  
I
don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the
device, nor personally ‘tested’ it.
***Raising the bar for
cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. You
haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings, but
you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such
a standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW




When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it.  (Or various 
versions of technology).  

***Raising the bar for
cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. Where is our 
hot-fusion flying car or jet pack?  Why is controlled hot-fusion always 50 
years away, and has been for the last 50 years?

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-11-29 Thread Jed Rothwell

This is a depressing exchange at FreeRepublic. That is a depressing website.

I gave up on discussions of this nature years ago. I figure there is no
point to arguing with people who will not do their homework. They have no
interest in learning the truth. I think it is better to seek out people who
are friendly toward cold fusion, and who want to learn about it.
Fortunately, thousands of such people visit LENR-CANR every week. So I
think the way to make progress is to write good papers and upload them.
Really good papers belong in Biberian's journal, which is published by
CMNS, and copied to LENR-CANR.org and maybe to other sites.

I am glad that Kevin went to the trouble to preserve this exchange. We
should file away copies of things like this from time to time, for future
historians. They will see what we were up against. In the past, after
scientific disputes were settled, I suppose much of the losing arguments
were lost.

The latest message in this exchange is more of the same:

Why won’t you tell people your “published data” won’t heat a teakettle?

The answer is: That is incorrect. In some cases cold fusion cells have
produced 100 W or more, and they have boiled 10 to 50 ml of water
continuously for hours or in a few cases, for months.

That would be the answer, but I see no point to posting it.

Incidentally, for people who are looking for introductory material, some of
the documents I recommend are here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263

Scroll down to Papers for the general reader

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-11-28 Thread Kevin O'Malley

How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath:  they won't read the simplest
evidence put in front of them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32


To: *tacticalogic*
 *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking
this like it is. Where's the beef?*

Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all
skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific
evidence for cold fusion.

First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated.

Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain
became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the
time.

Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold
fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time.

Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain
has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated.

So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an
HONEST respondent would admit that.

But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does
produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say
then.
32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 posted
on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder
Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/
[ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32
| Private
Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment|
To
31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View
Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report
Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32]
--
To: *Wonder Warthog*
 *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all
skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific
evidence for cold fusion.*

Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed
to go find it.
33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33 posted
on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by
tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/
[ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33
| Private
Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment|
To
32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View
Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report
Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33]
--
To: *tacticalogic*
 *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm
supposed to go find it.*

Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George
Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy
(Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies
of your local library.

The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research,
which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold
fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are
available free.

Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is
no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various
skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT
follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The
honest skeptics do.
34 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=34#34 posted
on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PST* by Wonder
Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/
[ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=34
| Private
Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.34;reftype=comment|
To
33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#33 | View
Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=34 | Report
Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=34]
--
To: *Wonder Warthog*

I’ve looked at LENR-CANR.org. It’s interesting research, but I can’t find
any research that’s actually producing measurable amounts of power to
justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon.

35 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=35#35 posted
on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PST* by
tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/
[ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=35
| Private
Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.35;reftype=comment|
To
34 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#34 | View
Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=35 | Report
Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=35]
--
To: *tacticalogic*
 *I’ve looked at

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-11-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley

One of the axioms utilized by H.L. Mencken in analyzing politics in the
United States stated that Americans were unable to grasp arguments on their
face and instead needed them recast in pure Manichean terms, with the most
repellent of devils on one side and the purest of angels on the other.

I’ve seen this axiom come into play on various debates including right
here. It is disheartening to see this logical fallacy lent credulity.  But
it is human nature, and moderators are drawn from the cloth of human nature
as are we all.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it
depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of
it.  So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation
into 1/2 the maximum.  One half of 300MJ is 150MJ.  One half of 6MJ is
3MJ.  Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order
of magnitude here or there.  That doesn't  change the fact that LENR is 12
orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion.

look at the two side by side:
cold fusion
2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k
average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$

Hot fusion
  0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion
average = 0.0003  sec*MjouleSamples/$
That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
 periods.


 Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6
 s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I
 am not sure.


 ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules
 for several hours and costs maybe $300k.


 No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a
 few have generated 10 to 300 MJ.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Basic derision

***That's all the skeptopaths seem to be able to muster.  They can't
counteract the science.  They downshift into ridicule because they can get
away with it.  It's basically like saying, hey, look, I can be an asshole
and get away with it, so that's what I'm going to do.  It does NOTHING to
further the science.  There isn't even an attempt to refute the science
behind the claims.

The same thing happened to the Wright brothers for 5 years between the time
they first flew an airplane in 1903 and the time they had a contract to
demo against in 1908.  What happened to those skeptopaths in 1904?  They
were utterly discredited, but within a few weeks of the Wright brothers
demonstration, they were spouting off yet again about how things should be
done differently, better, more to their liking.  It's horse shit.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Thanks for bumping the thread -- T4BTT

LENR seems to have its own set of Anti-Science Truthers. In the last couple
of years, there has been quite a bit of activity in the area of Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions. Originally, the field was called Cold Fusion in 1989
when Pons Fleischmann announced their findings prematurely. They were
ridiculed and blacklisted by scientists who could have lost funding for
their nuclear projects in 1989, even though some of their findings were
soon replicated.. You can get the story here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263

In fact, the only verified instance of Fraud in LENR was when MIT
scientists fudged their results to show a negative result rather than the
positive one the data supports.

The ongoing story here on Free Republic has been one where the detractors
use ridicule, falsehoods, false argumentation, classic fallacies,
misdirection, and all manner of unscientific and ugly behavior other than
to discuss the science behind the claims. In order to fight fire with fire,
I started calling these pathological skeptics “seagulls” but the moderator
told me not to do that. So the skeptopaths are allowed certain tactics on
FR but the LENR afficianados are not. It turns out that one of the
moderators resigned, and his scientific background was lacking in terms of
being able to properly absorb this material. At one time he even put it on
the same level as BigFoot without backing it up when confronted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2917406/posts?page=3976#3976

And even though the Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of
times by more than a thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed
journals.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)

.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• There is an unknown physical event and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
engineering solutions.

If you find that the thread leads to this post it is because I no longer
respond to the seagulls, I send all inquiries to this post so that crickets
are not generated, nor is there an impression left that they have an
objection worth pursuing. If lurkers feel the objection is worth pursuing,
they can repost the same question.
To learn more about LENR, I recommend the LENR-CANR website
http://lenr-canr.org/

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

Basic derision

***That's all the skeptopaths seem to be able to muster. They can't
counteract the science. They downshift into ridicule because they can get
away with it. It's basically like saying, hey, look, I can be an asshole
and get away with it, so that's what I'm going to do. It does NOTHING to
further the science. There isn't even an attempt to refute the science
behind the claims.

The same thing happened to the Wright brothers for 5 years between the
time they first flew an airplane in 1903 and the time they had a contract
to demo against in 1908. What happened to those skeptopaths in 1904? They
were utterly discredited, but within a few weeks of the Wright brothers
demonstration, they were spouting off yet again about how things should be
done differently, better, more to their liking. It's horse shit.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-08-15 Thread James Bowery

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

 But it is not an established ENGINEERING field ...


But it is not an established THEORETICAL field ...

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Vigilante Censorship, censorship by thread spamming


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts

To: *Moonman62*
 *I’m going to continue to post to you under FR’s guidelines. Your
interpretation of the guidelines is wrong. That’s why your repeated
attempts to get me banned have failed.*

Sure you will, because you're an asshole. Also ignorant (or a liar) not
understanding the difference between rules and etiquette. Thus far, I
have made NO effort to get you banned, nor do I want you banned as in
kicked off FR. I simply want you to cease posting to me. I have
ascertained from your LONG history that you are simply a liar, indulging in
vigilante censorship of the topic of LENR, and you will say literally
anything to foster that end. In future my total response to you will be:

*“Trolls, troublemakers, disruptors, forum pests, malcontents, RINOs,
liberals, stalkers, et al, would continue posting to (harassing) someone
after being asked to stop. Conservative FReepers would not.”*

DO NOT POST TO ME! (#)

Consider this to be #1. Perhaps if that number gets large enough, the mods
will pay some attention to your continuing abuse of FR.
41 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=41#41posted on
*Wed 30 Jan 2013 07:03:34 AM PST* by Wonder
Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/
[ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/reply?c=41|
Private
Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=2981505.41;reftype=comment|
To
40 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts#40 | View
Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/replies?c=41
| Report
Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/abuse?c=41]

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Cold fusioneers cannot get a US patent

Even anti-LENR anti-science Luddites acknowledge this is the case, and
applaud it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=13#13

To: *Moltke*
 *The patent office does not care whether or not it works. That’s for the
*market* to decide.*

The USPTO won't even look at a LENR or cold fusion patent application,
because over here it does matter whether it works or not.
13 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=13#13posted on
*Thu 24 Jan 2013 06:48:31 PM PST* by
Moonman62http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Emoonman62/(The US has become
a government with a country, rather than a country with
a government.)


--
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=20#20


To: *Moltke*
 *The sad fact is that the USPTO grants about an order of magnitude more
silly patents than the EPO.*

I've still got to give them credit for dismissing cold fusion applications
without wasting their time looking at them.
20 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=20#20posted on
*Fri 25 Jan 2013 10:14:20 AM PST* by
Moonman62http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Emoonman62/(The US has become
a government with a country, rather than a country with
a government.)

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-08-13 Thread Edmund Storms

LENR does NOT contradict current theory. LENR is a different  
phenomenon from hot fusion. Consequently the theory applied to hot  
fusion cannot be applied too cold fusion. We can only say that a piece  
of the puzzle is missing - nothing more.


Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:


LENR contradicts current theory.

***Experiment trumps theory  ~Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Winning  
Nuclear Physicist.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

2013-08-13 Thread Jed Rothwell

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
 periods.


Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6
s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I
am not sure.


***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules
 for several hours and costs maybe $300k.


No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few
have generated 10 to 300 MJ.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Pons Fleischmann's results were never replicated.

***WHAT? Not Replicated? Where do you get that ridiculous and ignorant
claim?

Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a
thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on
various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send
links.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

There is no conclusive theory.


***Same is true of high temperature superconductivity, but the skeptics
don’t key up on that, do they? In addition, there is no conclusive theory
of gravity. There’s the Law of Gravity, but no theory is settled -- there
are several competing theories. Why does this requirement exist for cold
fusion but not superconductivity nor gravity?


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg81648.html

 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.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
periods.


***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules
for several hours and costs maybe $300k. The longest lasting hot fusion
experiment generated 6 megajoules for a few seconds. So if you look at the
two side by side:
cold fusion
2 * 3600 seconds average * 100 Mjoules average * 14,700 replications /
$300k average = 35280 sec*MjouleSamples/$
Hot fusion
3 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 200 replications / $2 Billion average
= 0.018 sec*MjouleSamples/$
That is 12 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

just another fluff-piece from the margins of a marginal effect.
***If it is a marginal effect, then the world leaders in MEASurement would
have said so. But instead, Scientific Instruments has said there is an
anomalous effect here after looking into the MEASurements. Meanwhile, this
latest commentary on the science behind the claim is sounding just like the
usual scientifically illiterate gibberish that the anti-LENR crowd has been
putting out since the beginning.

National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered

LENR contradicts current theory.

***Experiment trumps theory  ~Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Winning Nuclear
Physicist.

Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered