On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
So if the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and 1/3 of the tries are
hits, then that is consistent with all the hits being false positives. How
can you not get that?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts,
making them falsifiable.
Yes, it is. And all of the mainstream experiments have excluded artifacts.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a
nuclear reaction that fits the claims.
I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Some experts do make mistakes, naturally. But not every single one of
them,
No, just the ones claiming nuclear reactions. They represent a small
fraction of experts.
day in day out, for years, when measuring heat
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
Here's a bigfoot believer making the same argument you make for cold
fusion (from J Milstone): The sheer mass of reports alone should point to
Jones,
I only read your top citation so far but it does indicate the
emissions recorded may have been due to ZPE [snip] We analyzed the emission
from different gases and cavities to determine its origin. None of the
conventional thermodynamic models we applied to our data fully explain
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
these people from all walks of life is bogus, misconstrued or originating
from a too many beers in the woods.
Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding -- we believe in Bigfoot here,
as well.
Good point. Plus, most cold fusion experiments are done
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
The experiments are *always* short of convincing . . .
Only to you. They have convinced thousands of scientists, such as McKubre,
Gerischer and Duncan. They have convinced most people who reviewed them,
including 6 out of the 18 reviewers at the
Hi Ed,
Vacuum energy can never be totally blocked by Casimir geometry or
anything physical, even an ideal metal with optimum geometry won't totally
block vacuum energy since it needs to permeate all matter in a Wave Structure
of Matter kind of way -cant have matter [a persistent
Is aluminium metal good for absorb hydrogen?
I also wonder which metals how is bad to absorb hydrogen?
Its not but to find good materials for hydrogen loading but also to
avoid de-loading.
For example a connecting cord to an anode can de-lode hydrogen from Ni
or Pd in an electrolytic experiment.
Guys,
I can't remember if I posted this before. If my theory is correct this is
a string of vacuum energy we know as a waterspout:
http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/ultra-thin-waterspout-spotted-georgia-coastline
It is referred to as a closed string 1-Brane by the string guys. You
cannot
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:27 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually skeptics (correctly called pseudo skeptics) are far worse than
that.
They even disbelieve things that can be explained by establishment dogma.
Actually, that which can be explained by establishment dogma is
This may be a naive question, but does not stimulated emission
concentrate energy in some sense? A material that is pumped to a higher
electron orbital has that energy spatially distributed and stimulated
emission causes it to concentrate in some sense. Have there been any
successful models of
Thanks for the description Fran. Let's focus on one subject at a time,
in this case the Casimir effect.
While you use and value theory, I see no value in a theory unless it
fits an observation. So, let's look at the Casimir effect in this
context. The evidence for the theoretical idea
Understanding the word spontaneous is essential. This means that a
material, to which no energy is applied, suddenly decides to get hot
on one side while getting cold on the other. This would be an example
of a spontaneous concentration of energy. This simply does not
happen. Of course,
Ed:
Two things...
1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir
effect... (sorry Fran).
Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range of
frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably approaching the
Plank frequency). Closely spaced,
Ed,
Don't many (most) LENR experiments use outside energy stimuli?
As far as concentration, nanostructures can concentrate currents
(see [1] ), electric fields (see Axil's many postings), or magnetic
fields (see [2]) enormously, with currents and fields available from
simple lab equipment.
How
Hi Mark,
Possible typo alert:
I think you meant to say 'wavelengths', not 'frequencies'.
Andy.
On 17/05/13 18:22, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Closely spaced, parallel conducting plates will ONLY
exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing between the plates.
Yes, **wavelengths** larger (=lower frequencies) than the plate spacing will
be excluded...
Thx for the correction Andy!
-m
-Original Message-
From: Andy Findlay [mailto:andy_find...@orange.net]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum
Assuming the casimir force is the best explanation of the observed force
on the plates, wouldn't the vacuum energy produce a drag on all moving
bodies?
Harry
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Ed:
Two things...
1. I don't think Fran's explanation
A polariton is a unique and special hybrid of light and the electron.
A polariton can be stimulated into lazing, which means it can form a
Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC).
See my post: Polariton lasers.
The polariton is light that carries negative electric charge.
When polaritons
Thanks Mark, this is making more sense. But I have a few more
questions. I'm sure all of these issues have been addressed.
I assume the radiation is normal photon radiation, but at a higher
frequency than is normally encountered. When such radiation passes
through a material, the
Axil, if this process actually can initiate a nuclear reaction, why do
nuclear reactions not occur when these polaritons are made? Why are
certain materials treated to certain very novel conditions required to
cause CF? There appears to be no connection between the conditions
required to
LENR requires a concentration of polaritons that is challenging to produce
when random processes are at play.
First, heat maintained at a sufficient level must be available in the
system.
Next, an ideal mix of micro and nano-particles of the proper sizes must be
used in the system that
From the standpoint of CoE every spontaneous emission is just a delayed
stimulated emission.
If it were possible transfer energy without doing work to produce a
spontaneous emission at a later time then entropy would decrease.
The spontaneous creation of energy would also decrease entropy.
harry
On May 17, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
LENR requires a concentration of polaritons that is challenging to
produce when random processes are at play.
First, heat maintained at a sufficient level must be available in
the system.
What temperature? LENR works near room
Ed Storms states:
What temperature? LENR works near room temperature.
Axil Responds:
In the Ni/H reactor, the startup temperature is about 60C to 80C.
Ed Storms states:
No evidence exists that a large number of nano particles are present during
LENR, although a few are always present
Yes, it's called inertia.
Bernie Haisch and Alfonso Rueda derived it (F=ma), and published it in
Physical Revue A in 1994.
-mark
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Assuming
Ed,
Thanks for your reply.
Your statement may be correct.
I am looking for overlooked explanations for paradoxical LENR experiments.
The Feynman Lecture reference I cited at the start of this thread shows
that electrons in electric arcs can pick up significant linear momentum as
current is
Hi Ed,
I want to extend a sincere thank you for engaging the inquisitive minds here
and helping to focus some of the discussions. I have been too busy to
participate in what have been some very good exchanges, and fortunately too
busy so as to avoid others! ;-) Most of the regular-posting
Click on the video here to see Watson in action:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/17/watson_oncology_diagnostic_medicine_without_the_doctor.html
You can see this is similar to today's computer, but so much larger, faster
and more capable it is verging on something new. I think this
Actually Universal Artificial
Intelligencehttp://www.amazon.com/Universal-Artificial-Intelligence-Algorithmic-Probability/dp/3540221395is
a field of study that has rigorously proven that in a
computable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability universe,
intelligence is precisely measured as the
Let's put some numbers to it...
From Dr. Milonni's YouTube presentation:
F = ((pi^2)*hbar*c) / (240d^4) (force per unit area, Casimir original
derivation in 1948)
F = 0.013 dyne for 1cm square plates separated by 1um.
Which is comparable to the Coulomb force on the electron in the H atom.
Mark,
A force is provocative -- but a dynamic effect is what we want to see for
free energy.
Recently, the DCE or dynamical Casimir effect has been shown to be real
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-nihilo-dynamical-casimir-effect-metamaterial.ht
ml
Is it only a matter of time... ?
-Original
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/docs.php?doc=phase_2_data
The results of the Ni/H system is disappointing. The COP is still under 2.
Brillouin Energy still fails to incorporate the lessons learned from
other Ni/H reactors to increase their power gain.
There may be many roads to LENR, some more
Agreed, and it *is* only a matter of time...
but can they please hurry up since I want to see it happen!
-m
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
Mark,
A
36 matches
Mail list logo
