Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: [From Axil] It is a safe assumption that pairing of protons is occurring. > > > I see no reason for this assumption. Such pairs are only found in H2, > which is not nuclear reactive. > Ed, Axil is playing with you. See: http://www.urbandicti

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM, James Bowery wrote: 2) The cold fusion fiasco of the century has resulted in such a vicious > attack on research that the ordinary product of research -- which is > pursuit of reproducible experiments -- has been driven "underground" so > deeply that the only hope

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

I do not see where we differ in understanding Bob. The system you describe had nearly zero total angular momentum before and after the collision so it remains conserved. The rotational energy can be extracted by various means as I also stated. Harry has concluded that angular momentum can not

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Jed etal--Bob Cook here-- I was impressed with Swartz's presentation on the 5th day of the MIT lectures series. He seems like a real enthusiastic researcher and inventor with a very significant invention, although small, based on a LENR process, whatever it turns out to be, The fact that he a

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > >> ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the >> X-Prize. >> I agree. How do you suggest this be done? >> ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest >> a

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

Harry and Dave--Bob Cook here-- Keep in mind that the law is that angular momentum must be conserved. However systems with angular momentum can also have significant energy that can be changed to heat. Take two planets in the solar system with direction of rotation in opposite directions.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze--Bob here-- If you follow Rossi's blog, he has already considered the potential of Sterling engines. I agree with Bob Higgins that small is not bad. I could use one in my off-grid home in Alaska. Even a small thermo-electric device hooked to the NANOR would be useful. Bob - Orig

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

Axil and Ed--Bob here-- Note that I assumed that electrons also were around when the 4 H reaction took place. The electrons react with the assembled system of particles to make neutrons as required to conserve spin in the reaction and to get to a low energy ground state consistent with an inc

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

*You also need to account for the neutrons in such a process and explain how so many H can enter the nucleus. You have simply thrown the clay against the wall to see what sticks rather than creating a pot. Anyone can do this. We need to know how to make a pot. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Kevin O'Malley wrote: > ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the > X-Prize. > I agree. How do you suggest this be done? > ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest > and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

http://bettigue.blogspot.de/ This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat energy you need to run these, though perhaps they could be optimized for a Nanor device. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > What I want to see is this thing hooked up to a minatu

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

Your corollary would be an excellent addition to my discussion. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: OK. Energy i

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Bob Higgins wrote: I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR > device. > The commercial value would be great. However, it is difficult to believe results on a such a small scale. If the scale has now increased from 20 to 50 mW up to about 100 mW -- as claimed -- t

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze Spinnaker wrote: AGAIN, it's not 4mW excess, it's 4mW * 27 excess. IT was 4mW input, which > is obviously easy to measure. > Ah, this is a new claim. That would be 100 mW output, which is easier to measure than his previous claims of 20 to 50 mW. > Swartz is doing one better than publi

[Vo]:Miles graph of non-linear calorimeter response

I wrote: > 3. It is VERY difficult to measure 4 mW. > It is *much, much* harder than measuring 100 mW or 1 W. You may not appreciate this until you have spent a good deal of time looking at raw data from calorimeters, and looking at different calorimeters. For nearly all instruments, 4 mW is in

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

What I want to see is this thing hooked up to a minature sized sterling engine On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR > device. I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18. I believe > small is

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR device. I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18. I believe small is beautiful and I have a perfect application. Today 2-way public safety radios use lithium batteries that only work to about -10C, but the ra

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

AGAIN, it's not 4mW excess, it's 4mW * 27 excess. IT was 4mW input, which is obviously easy to measure. Swartz is doing one better than publishing a paper or giving a lecture. He's selling the experimental devices so people can replicate in their own labs. Please, people, watch the video before

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze Spinnaker wrote: 'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on > only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a credible claim by any > standard. '* > > OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha. > Swartz is credible, but a 4 mW claim made during a

[Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles, Part 2

*Fusion by Pseudo-Particles, Part 2* http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part2.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

emphasis will not be placed on basic research until something is shown which excites people. ***As much as I dislike agreeing with Blaze, he is right. The LENR MFMP gamma ray X-Prize proposal would spur research, excitement, industrial level investment, and much more. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42580.0#.Us39MPvTDFw scroll down to see the three videos of this coriolis effect that mimics the lorentz law deflection of a charged particle orthogonal to a magnetic field; another sideways deflection force that is the basis of motor and gener

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Edmund, you really need to watch the video. Swartz is claiming this is exactly what he needs to do. Produce the Nanor so other people can use it to scale up. My point is - emphasis will not be placed on basic research until something is shown which excites people. Perhaps this is chicken and eg

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

My response will be embedded in the email with 3 asterisks *** as the flag. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible support > for investment > ***Investment is different than research. Surely you agree with that?

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible support for investment in a working devoice. I did not make this clear. I hope it is clear now. If Swartz supplies devices that survive testing, this would be useful to basic research but not to a development study. My poi

[Vo]: LENR XPrize proposal

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the > X-Prize. > I agree. How do you suggest this be done? > ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest > and investment than the origina

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

But we have hundreds of examples of heat production and now companies claim > they will provide generators. What more do we need to get massive support? > What benefit would a device producing 4 mW of power add? > ***4 mW will generate a TON of benefit as long as 4microWatts is the input. Think a

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

The previous poster wrote: "You can borrow angular momentum from one portion of the closed system to give to another portion but the overall angular momentum of the system is conserved. " Consider the following circular observation which shows clues to future actions; http://www.flickr.com/photo

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Woah, wait. It's not " 4 mW of excess power .." It's 4mW of INPUT power. Watch the video before commenting, please! On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > 'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on > only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a cr

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the X-Prize. I agree. How do you suggest this be done? ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing something? On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 a

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a credible claim by any standard. '* OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha. Your input is useful, truly. It undermines my faith in him as well. But then ther

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires money. ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the X-Prize. I agree. How do you suggest this be done? Ed Storms On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. ***No, not worthless. As an example, the private sector had the ability for 2 decades to

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires money. ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the X-Prize. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > So Swartz is not unique.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. ***No, not worthless. As an example, the private sector had the ability for 2 decades to go into space but didn't bother even trying until the Ansar

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. ***Yes, WE do. But someone who was looking to take advantage of 'true believers' would first offer outlandish odds, and then offer surprisingly "rational" odds in order to draw them in. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM,

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Watch the videos before commenting - they actually say that Rossi shouldn't be dismissed. ***That still doesn't make for any kind of connection between Rossi and these other developments. You're obviously confused. What you MEAN is that you're giving odds that LENR is Real, not necessarily that

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on only 4 mW of excess power?? This is not a credible claim by any standard. Ed Storms On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Watch at 2:38:00 He's reporting 27x gain and 4mW On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:25 P

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? ***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has implications, so do

Re: [Vo]:Quiescence

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > My prediction for this report is that it will say two things of great > importance to readers of this list (and tout-le-monde) > 1) Rossi's E-Cat usually operates at high COP for an extended period > and will eventually be a game chan

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Watch at 2:38:00 He's reporting 27x gain and 4mW On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > ' > > >- Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high >lenr+ cop > > That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value based > on? > > ' >

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: > OK. Energy is proportional to velocity squared. If you double the > velocity, you have four times as much energy as in the first case. Also > the direction of the motion is not important. For example, a ball moving > to the right has a c

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide? ***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. I've seen

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

*This simply does not happen. I have no idea what you base this idea on. Particles in contact do not form a discharge at their contact. The particles are attached to each other by chemical interaction that does not cause an energy difference such that the surrounding H2 is changed in any way. Your

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

*What causes electrostatic attraction? You must be assuming the particles are in a vacuum because if they have contact with a material they have no charge because the excess electrons have been conducted away.Hot nanoparticles stick together.* Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetic

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

' - Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high lenr+ cop That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value based on? ' Have you watched this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7NMQLvATo >

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

James, you describe the basic problem very well. In addition, the idea of basic science has a bad rap in the US because it is called "playing in the sand box". This kind of study was once done by graduate students or in government laboratories, but this source is now very much diminished.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

I've noticed a pathology in this discourse that boils down to a conflation, hence confusion, of research with development. This conflation has two main historic sources: 1) Government funded technology development often times will conflate research with development because there is a lot more mo

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

*Yes, DGT applies a plasma but not to the active Ni, which is shielded in Ni foam. Rossi did not apply plasma initially, yet his e-Cat worked. Many other people have studied the Ni-H2 system without using applied plasma. Obviously, applied plasma is not required. I'm trying to understand what IS R

Re: [Vo]:Quiescence

*This problem is caused by the destruction of the material surface supporting LENR. I believe that both Rossi and DGT, provide methods that continually renew the NAE sites when he apply heat (Rossi) or a spark (DGT). * *Most other LENR systems will eventually destroy the surfaces that support LE

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze, why do you keep jumping to conclusions having no relationship to what I say? I did not say Swartz does not know how to measure energy. I have no doubt he can make the effect work. I question whether he understands HOW it works, not THAT it works. Do you understand the difference? O

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

So your premise then that not only is his theoretical understanding wrong, but he doesn't know how to measure energy / heat as well? >From what I can see: - an MIT professor is vouching for Swartz by association - Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high lenr+ co

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct. ] No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application reqires knowledge ab

[Vo]:Quiescence

Rumor central: "Quiescence" rears its icy demeanor in Research Triangle. This subject comes up for discussion here periodically, but many vorticians are in denial that quiescence is a known reality and major problem in LENR. Let's hope the quiescence problem is solvable, but it is not as simple

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is correct. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is > a good appro

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out. >> > > I do not think so. They have never been able to keep their nuclear weapons > programs secret. People have known about these programs since 1957 whe

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with reali

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and frankly, way beyond my understanding. But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting massive investment and recognition from labs ev

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about how L

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Watch the videos before commenting - they actually say that Rossi shouldn't be dismissed. They seemed very credible to me, like someone who had been working on the same problem and making slow progress over the years. Nanor is also LENR+ if you scale it up properly. It also felt they were peer re

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet Energy and test that. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would > say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chan

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

I think the idea is that it's supposed to be a question, not an advertisement for Cold Fusion. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > > I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion: >> > > If that really is Bill Gates please rephrase your questi

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence with the X-Pr

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Blaze Spinnaker wrote: I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion: > If that really is Bill Gates please rephrase your question with a little more info. and ask again, or add information. At least, please say: "You can many peer-reviewed scientific papers from mainstream journals about

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rossi. Your entire assessment is littered with irrelevant items. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: > Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos. > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker > wr

RE: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

The Iranians could develop it secretly. No one would believe them as the Israeli-influenced media - especially in the US - would deny all of it. Hide in plain sight.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xj56q/hello_reddit_im_bill_gates_cochair_of_the_bill/cfbvi10 On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting ou

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Ed states: This happens in a chemical system, not in plasma where your concept would apply. Any separation of charge must take into account the surrounding electrons and atoms. A "vibration" has to take place in a local region having no conn

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

James Bowery wrote: I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out. > I do not think so. They have never been able to keep their nuclear weapons programs secret. People have known about these programs since 1957 when they began. To make a practical cold fusion device, it will tak

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

Ed states: This happens in a chemical system, not in plasma where your concept would apply. Any separation of charge must take into account the surrounding electrons and atoms. A "vibration" has to take place in a local region having no connection to the chemical structure. That is the role of the

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

On Feb 10, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Thanks Ed My concept of the LENR reaction is a passive one. Yours is a more active one. Axil, I would say your concept uses one aspect of a theoretical concept while my concept involves the entire LENR process. According to my current way

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

Thanks Ed My concept of the LENR reaction is a passive one. Yours is a more active one. According to my current way of thinking, dipole vibration maintains the separation of electron and proton in hydrogen. These separated electrons are then sequestered and redirected into the NAE (aka soliton)

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

Axil, I hope you realize the Hydroton, which I propose allows the fusion reaction to take place and dissipates the energy, involves resonance of electrons coupled to hydrogen atoms. I'm describing the structure in which the polariton would operate. So far you have not supplied this essenti

RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

From: Sunil Shah "We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter ...About the full-size machines: "Both equipment are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW". And "Company founded in 02/04/2006,

[Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

*Fusion by Pseudo-Particles Part 1 Past, Present and Future *

RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

I had a quick peek at a google translated version of http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ and found: "We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Avenida Pedro Ivo, 933." About the full-size machines: "Both equipment are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW"

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

yes 2014-02-10 2:02 GMT+01:00 Blaze Spinnaker : > If cold fusion is real, you can be assured that the smart money knows a > lot more about it than you do.These people get paid millions of dollars > a year to be on top of things like this. > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wr