It is clear these are not laws, but phenomenological regularities observed.
A bit like observing that animal are smaller on islands.
If I understand well, your opinion is that even seen as observation of
regularities, it is not so true... Moreover all is mixed with theoretical
noise.
thanks for
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:58, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Step three is to perform sputtering as seen in the aforementioned YouTube
video.
I wonder whether some suitable topologies could be worked out at a basic level
with a 3d printer.
Eric
On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:48, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mainland China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 28 under
construction, and more about to start construction.
An interesting implication of building so many reactors is that they will no
doubt gain a great deal of
On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:11, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
1. He4 is made without energetic particle or photon emission using D.
The CR-39 experiments suggest that there are ~1 MeV protons and ~4 MeV alphas
exiting some Pd/D configurations.
Some of the work done at BARC and by
On Feb 17, 2013, at 15:04, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect these events only seem infrequent
Careful, Eric. We're actually getting, just in the last few years, enough
data to falsify claims like yours now.
I'm not claiming, I'm suspecting. ;)
Eric
On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:49, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
It is interesting to note that the complete works of Shakespeare must
also occur in Pi somewhere. (irrational, non ending and non
repetitive
I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making
when we
You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
Of course maybe it was just diffuse plasma.
Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
On Feb
It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
explosion right. Just look at the beginning of this thread.
2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
The biggest blunder is having an object hurdling at you @ 60,000 mph with
the ability to take out a city and not even realizing it.
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
It was just a horrible blunder. Even I got the number and the yield of the
explosion right. Just look at the
Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are
detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main
effect, hence are not part of the LENR process. Yes, X-rays are seen
which are much less in number than needed to account for the heat.
These are
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:49 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
You, like NASA, are off by at least a factor of 1000...
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/19/russian-meteorite-1000-times-bigger-than-originally-thought/
That article makes no sense at all. Maybe they mean the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:21 AM, David Jonsson
davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Does anyone know if the net flow of ocean water flows faster, slower or with
the same rotational speed as the solid body rotation of the Earth?
The relative speed of the surface of the earth is 1000 mph.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
The relative speed of the surface of the earth is 1000 mph. That's
one heck of a current!
That would be at the equator, BTW.
Axil, I suggest for a theory or process, such as you suggest, to be
useful, it needs to be applied to real materials in ways that can be
utilized by people who attempt to make power by the process. If you
think nano-photonics is important, please show exactly how the idea
applies to PdD,
Close, probably dark matter nuclei :)
I think I read 50m diameter but I have not done the math.
I want to see if they can find what made that perfectly round 20'-30'
diameter hole in the ice. So far nada...
Should be worth a lot if it exists.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Terry
How to build a gamma shield
I have suggested to Ed Storms that it may be productive for the LENR
theorist to become familiar with the tools available in the conceptual
toolbox wielded by the journeymen nano-optician as follows:
“I think you’re discounting the field of nano-photonics which
See my post: How to build a gamma shield Cheers: Axil
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Axil, I suggest for a theory or process, such as you suggest, to be
useful, it needs to be applied to real materials in ways that can be
utilized by people who
OK Abd, this is good progress.
Here is where I see differences.
1. You believe people may learn to control LENR by trial and error and
I believe this will only happen when the correct explanation is applied.
2. You believe many different LENR mechanisms exist and I believe
there is only one.
There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
weight around 10ktons.
2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
Close,
Where is it?
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic energy
of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s. Consider the typical density of
7g/cm^3. The kinetic energy released is around 500ktons of tnt and its
10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Where is it?
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
There is nothing unusual about that asteroid. Calculate the kinetic
energy of a sphere with 15m of diameter at 30km/s.
1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
have a volume of 4/3*pi*(7.5) ~ 1800m^3. The total weight is around
12thousand tons. Not much, really.
2013/2/20 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
10,000 tons is A LOT OF STUFF
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, ChemE
Should be easy to find then, especially the 20' dia hole in the lake
object. I would be dawning my scuba gear and metal detector. 40 x the
price of gold...
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:
1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually. If its radius is 7.5m, then we
have a
--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 12:15 PM
1m3 of an asteroid weights 7tons, usually.
http://www.greenwooddemocrat.com/articles/2013/02/20/front/wilson022013.txt
Mark Goldes
Co-Founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org
707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a
testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great
invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed.
It sure sounds like you now think a theory is required ...
[m]
[1]
Mark, if you read subsequent messages you will discover that a
different of opinion does, in fact, exist.
Ed
On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1]
that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized
Axil:
That article is exceedingly difficult to read. It's 2 pages embedded into
969 pages of PDF and page 120 is blank. For the sake of others, so they do
not have to try 6 times to load the page, I have copied what I could, but
it does not contain page 120... because it is blank.
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a
testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great
invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed.
I still disagree. Other discoveries, such as high
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a
testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great
invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed.
***There currently is no accepted theory of gravity.
So sorry, please excuse me.
Here is the first page as follows
page 120
Ultrafast Cathodoluminescence for Improved Gamma-Ray Scintillators
Jeffrey M. Pietryga
20100183ER
Introduction
Energy resolving gamma-ray detectors are crucial to
national security, nonproliferation, and basic
What I am saying here is that you can't just make up arbitrary new rules
and apply them to cold fusion. You cannot demand standards never applied to
any previous breakthrough in science or technology. Widespread,
peer-reviewed, high sigma replication is not just the gold standard of
truth in
People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives
information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it
happen on demand. A process cannot be believed or even studied unless
it can be made to occur on demand. So far, LENR occurs occasionally by
chance or
This is the theory of gravity I like best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Erik_Verlinde.27s_theory
There is no reasonable doubt concerning the physical reality of entropic
forces, and no reasonable doubt that classical (and semi-classical) general
relativity is closely related to
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***There currently is no accepted theory of gravity. There is a law of
gravity but no widely accepted theory.
That is correct. As far as I know there is no theory explaining inertia
either.
And in fact, when the Wright brothers got a patent for
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
It makes no sense to demand a testable theory or a demonstrably practical
device. Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery
and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives
information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it
happen on demand. A process cannot be believed or even studied unless it
can be made to occur on demand. So far,
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not
about science, it's about technology and making something that works
because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized.
Gibbs misses the point. We cannot wave a
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
People seem to be missing the essential issue here. A theory gives
information about a process or phenomenon that is required to make it
happen on demand.
***Has your theory brought LENR to this point?
The Wright
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wright Brothers had a theory - it was called the theory of lift.
***No, they did not. The theories of lift came in the 1920's, well after
airplanes had been flying and doing their stuff.
Correct.
They were the first to understand this
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Yes Eric, occasionally a very few neutrons and energetic particles are
detected. These are at least 10 orders of magnitude below the main effect,
hence are not part of the LENR process.
***How do you know they are not
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Incomplete theory, less than optimum results...
. . .
Everything went well until that fateful day in September that began with a
cheering crowd of 2,000 and ended with pilot Orville Wright severely
injured and passenger Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge
Incomplete theory, less than optimum results...
It had only been five years since Orville and Wilbur Wright made their famous
flight at Kitty
Hawkhttp://history1900s.about.com/od/firstflight/a/Wright-Brothers.htm.
By 1908, the Wright brothers were traveling across the United States and
Europe in
*FP produced 294 MJ of excess energy at 101 W.*
Regarding:
*Demonstrate scientifically, with great precision and solid certainty that
the Fleischmann Pons Effect has a nuclear nature.*
It is unfortunate the Fleischmann Pons Effect was the first instance of the
LENR reaction’s manifestation.
I
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are making
when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally
typing monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining
I wrote:
Multiple fail-safe devices in a high pressure call all failed at once, in
a terrible coincidence.
Meant high pressure CELL. See p. 139:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf
- Jed
To make 1 watt of power using d+d=He, the fusion reaction has to
happen at 10^11 times a second, which would produce radiation at this
flux if it resulted from the process. The detected energetic radiation
is frequently near 1 event/sec. This low level flux can also be
explained by hot
How about applying Occham's Razor? If these fusion events were happening
on the surface at 10^11 times/sec, then there would likely -- likely, as in
applying INDUCTIVE reasoning-- be far more radiation emitted because it
would not be absorbed by the lattice. It seems that the absorption by the
Poor propeller design theory
You take yourself awfully serious Jed
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
Multiple fail-safe devices in a high pressure call all failed at once, in
a terrible coincidence.
Meant high pressure CELL. See p. 139:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something
about how radiation and LENR behave. Your suggestion is not consistent
with this knowledge. I know it is fun to speculate and I don't want
to insult your interest, but describing the reasons why this
suggestion is not
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com mailto:mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is
not about science, it's about technology and making something that
works because the original question was about what would make LENR
recognized.
I hope I
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their
patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along.
O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any
such
Terry, I laughed when I heard the first estimates that it only weighed 10 tons.
Have you looked at the mass of big boulders lately? A ton is tiny.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 10:49 am
Terry...
... The relative speed...
Relative to what?
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ocean net flow
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Terry Blanton
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Terry...
... The relative speed...
Relative to what?
A point at the center of the earth.
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Poor propeller design theory
Nope. Good theory, bad craftsmanship. They tried to save some time and
money by repairing a damaged propeller.
The Wrights were superb craftsmen. I guess in this case they were too
confident in their own ability to fix
This new technology uses what I believe is central to the specific
mechanisms that underpin LENR; that is, EMF frequency conversion and
transformation.
From the text it states:
The sensor is based on a polymer film known as a luminescent concentrator
(LC), which is suffused with tiny fluorescent
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their
patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along.
O'Malley is making unfounded
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their
patent. Gibbs seems to think this
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something about
how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list. I got an A
in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms:
Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. The point is, it wasn't a theory, it
was data. They had tables of lift and drag for different airfoils, with
different chambers, at various
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed
Storms:
Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely.
Ah, so if Ed speaks loosely it's OK and forgivable but if I do
But the distance to the center is constant, and speed is dx/dt so it's 0 :-)
.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ocean net flow
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:18 PM,
The circumference of the earth is roughly 24,000 miles and rotates 360
degrees in 24 hours. Therefore, your tangential speed at the equator
is 1000 mph.
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely.
Ah, so if Ed speaks loosely it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a
thing I'm simply wrong?
Not if you are speaking loosely!
And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's
called
If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
Harry
On Wed, Feb 20,
OK, you take your knowledge about the Wright brothers very seriously Jed.
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Poor propeller design theory
Nope. Good theory, bad craftsmanship. They
At 05:33 PM 2/20/2013, Mark Gibbs wrote:
And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing
that's called LENR? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work
and whatever Rossi and Defkalion are doing, experiments. So:
1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in some
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter have
improved from some cells show excess heat, to most cells show excess
heat and recently, to all cells show excess heat.
Where? With Pd?
2B The excess heat can range from barely
At 07:04 PM 2/20/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan Fletcher
a...@well.com wrote:
2A. Experiments for a particular batch by a particular experimenter
have improved from some cells show excess heat, to most
cells show excess heat and recently, to all cells show
excess heat.
Where? With Pd?
Yes --
Sounds good to me Terry. I think that the ocean currents should be referenced
to the sea floor below them. That is the best place to call zero even though
it is moving fast relative to an observer in space.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To:
Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all of
the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe. Of course,
you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of predictions that
are utter non sense.
Now, you might not find the
Their historical record is incredibly impressive as is that of many other
brilliant people who made our lives as they are. How convenient would a time
machine be that would allow you to go back and see exactly what occurred in
real time? You would have to promise not to modify the process
You take yourself awfully serious Jed
I don't. I just happen to know a great deal about the Wright brothers.
That plus a whole bunch of other stuff. That is an ASTOUNDING
accomplishment. Imagine understanding a propeller to that extent before
anyone, anywhere in the world made a real
74 matches
Mail list logo
