Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont
match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 8:15 PM
Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new
energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable
of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is
unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand
generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'.
This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the
scientific community.
There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare
occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very
strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A
strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects.
I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open
mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as
far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are
some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown
variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative
folks like us.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm
Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
#yiv1787374310 #yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv1787374310 {font-family:Cambria
Math;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1787374310
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
p.yiv1787374310MsoNormal, #yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
li.yiv1787374310MsoNormal, #yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
div.yiv1787374310MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:serif;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882 a:link,
#yiv1787374310 #yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
span.yiv1787374310MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
a:visited, #yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
span.yiv1787374310MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
span.yiv1787374310EmailStyle17
{font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
.yiv1787374310MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1787374310 {margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1787374310
#yiv1787374310AOLMsgPart_1_e497a6a3-145a-4eb7-92eb-d4ffd70b9882
div.yiv1787374310WordSection1 {}
I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question…
What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy
yet to be discovered?
0=No F*in Way
1=slight chance
2=reasonable chance
3=very good chance
4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy
I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school
at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a
wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of
the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’
topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually.
One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way
they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college
text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out
loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but
the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase
which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and
second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is,
“IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” you know the rest
Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important,
phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes
a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy) On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote: What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ --- On *Sun, 6/17/12, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com* wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, June 17, 2012, 8:15 PM Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is, “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” you know the rest Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact… we know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and ‘always’ and ‘never’ and ‘impossible’ are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like ‘very unlikely’, or ‘highly improbable’. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics… improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
ha! Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy) On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote: What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Well pardon me, that seems obvious, but I dont think I saw those words anywhere in the original post. I wish that folks using abbreviations could do that for the ones they use. --- On Mon, 6/18/12, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, June 18, 2012, 12:29 PM ha!Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Church of England (or possibly Conservation of Energy) On 18 June 2012 17:10, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote: What does CoE stand for, I guess it means in a closed system? Thy symbols dont match the words very well, so I cant find the meaning
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
I don't think concept of entanglement is required. Here is what I mean by complete. An entity is complete when its presence *can* be detected (not that it must detected). Unlike other particles Neutrinos do not scatter, as far I know. A particle which can be scattered can be detected without destruction, so it is complete without destruction. If Neutrinos are more than just mathematical fictions, but cannot be scattered, then they remain incomplete until they are detroyed during an interaction. Harry On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the decay? The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time. Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus? Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete until they interact. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility rather than a necessity. Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is, “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” you know the rest Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact… we know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and ‘always’ and ‘never’ and ‘impossible’ are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like ‘very unlikely’, or ‘highly improbable’. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics… improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Eric, perhaps you noticed my reference to neutrinos easily escaping the system along with their associated energy. That was my way of evading the CoE in the closed environment. Actually, that was the way they were originally proposed; a way to explain the variation in energy associated with beta decay. The neutrino came to the rescue of the CoE in that case. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
RE: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
I’m probably sitting between 3 to 4, and here is why… Empirical evidence for the existence of the zero-point field (ZPF) is now well established… what that means is that there is something present that we are only recently beginning to understand. The only important question relevant to this thread is then, can the ZPF interact with ‘normal matter’ (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules) and take part in transforming into a more common form of energy. If so, then any experiment that encounters anomalous energy balance (+ or -) would need to ask the question, could the experiment be triggering a conversion of ZPF energy to one of the ‘regular’ forms of energy (or vice-a-versa)? Last I checked, I couldn’t buy a ZPF meter from Fluke Instruments, so how does one know if the ZPF is being tapped? Also as far as I know, you can’t exclude all the ZPF from a region…. So you cannot say definitively that it isn’t a ZPF/matter interaction. Granted, given experiments which are within the normal range of things, anomalies are almost always error. But if the conditions of the experimental system are rare or extreme in some manner, and you get anomalous results, you have to take a serious look at the possibility of new physics; new interactions. I asked this all important question of Dr. Rueda (recently mentioned here) many years ago when we had lunch at Cal State Long Beach, “can the ZPF be converted into one of the ‘known’ forms of energy?”. His answer was, “A way to do that has not yet popped out from all my derivations and calculations, however, I also haven’t come across anything that would prevent it.” So basically he said that it is a possibility… however remote that might be. That is the cautious and non-scientifically dogmatic answer I would expect from a true scientist. I’d like to ask him that same question now that a decade has passed… For those not familiar with Haisch and Rueda, Bernie Haisch had a conceptual idea which he began discussing with Dr. Rueda, regarding inertia. Dr. Rueda calls him one night, like 2am, and says to Dr. Haisch, “I’ve just derived f=ma”… that became the 1994 paper which almost didn’t get published because one of the peer reviewers said, “I can’t find any errors in your mathematics, and the physics looks good, but it just can’t be!” How’s that for a scientific review… As long as humans are doing science, cognitive dissonance will slow our discovery of the unknown… -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
The apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe is also conundrum from the standpoint of CoE. harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility rather than a necessity. Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the decay? The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time. Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus? Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete until they interact. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility ather than a necessity. eutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of heir creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain ncomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry n Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
