The general reason is that it is much safer to discuss something you know
than to open up to the unknown.
I don't think it is the greatest cause. As I live in a country build on
massive groupthink and dissenters elimination, I know the Parkinsson
observation you cite.
however the reason why
In Ni/H fusion reactions, it is likely that many protons form proton rich
isotopes directly in a single cluster fusion process without interim
buildup from interim lower Z fusions via multiple lower Z element fusion
steps. Proton-rich isotopes will then decay via positron emission, in which
a
see reference:
http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/us20110249783a1.pdf
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
In Ni/H fusion reactions, it is likely that many protons form proton rich
isotopes directly in a single cluster fusion process without interim
interesting debate...
Mizuno support of experimental results for some, implies support of his
theory, thus critic of the experimental results of those whose result
challenge Mizuno theory...
I think that premature focus on theory is THE problem.
I have re read the history of cold fusion,
Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
I read it and was impressed until I became confused by the statistical
analysis discussion on page eight.
*For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess
heat was measuredin 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure
there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are
talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of
this work was done a decade ago.
I
A key date for LENR, possibly the most important date since 1989, could be
the 15th Japan Cold Fusion Research Conference in Sapporo, Japan on Nov.
1-2, 2014 where Yoshino and Mizuno will present detailed results of the
kilowatt reactor upgrade.
They will also present nuclear data which may
I agree with what you said Alain.
I think you expressed yourself better than me. Thanks.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
My sense is that the transmutation process is dependent on the geometry of
the surface that the LENR reaction is produced by. There are many types of
such surface geometries that are capable of producing the LENR effect and
therefore there are many types of transmutation mechanisms possible among
From: Jed Rothwell
* No, we are not talking about self-made gadgets. We are talking about three
of the world's best facilities for measuring helium: U. Texas, Rockwell
International, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. That was stated by Miles, by me
and by others many times. Has Jones Beene
FYI:
I know this kind of tech has been discussed by the Collective before, but
here's some recent results from NASA.
http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustPro
ductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf
Excerpt from Abstract:
During the first (Cannae) portion
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
In many case we are talking about self-made gadgets to enrich the helium.
No, in every case I know of, enrichment was done by the mass spectroscopy
experts themselves, with in house equipment. There are no self-made gadgets
involved. Miles did nothing to
I wrote:
In any case, their cells produced about a thousand times more power than
Miles . . .
Correction: ~200 to ~500 times more power.
I have no idea whether these cells were gas tight enough to collect helium.
Most cells are not.
- Jed
It may be possible to optimize the Ni/H reactor to transform most of its
energy output to RF energy by adding NMR active elements into its
structure. This RF perpulstion effect could make the Ni/H reactor a natural
space drive engine for deep space exploration where the energy from the sun
From: Jed Rothwell
[Snip] evasive double talk
We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who had
access to MS not test at all?
* How do you know they did not test? I have no idea whether they did
or not.
Then if you had the
James Bowery wrote:
Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects
to BLP's site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP
etc.?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages
I appreciate respect Mizuno myself, and perhaps his new experiment will
reveal something of real value moving forward, but to pin all your hopes on
a single, non-replicated blown-out-of-proportion experiment, while at the
same time dismissing over a dozen time-tested studies of the heat/helium
This has got to be a joke, right?
Foks sez: believers in Heat-helium are “Faith- based” LOL… that makes my day.
In fact, since there are no gammas, there is no valid scientific conclusion
other than that the fusion of deuterium to helium cannot be responsible for
gain. But – if you are
Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive
your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how
to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent LOL and
winning-is-everything attitude, will you please?
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM,
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell
[Snip] evasive double talk
Don't be obnoxious. I never evade anything.
We should ask – why not – or why did Roulette/Pons – who
had
access to MS not test at all?
I am not in
And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you shill
for Mill's work), I wouldn't go out of my way to interview people in the
field with widely differing opinions on the matter at hand (i.e. Ahern vs.
Storms). I have no pet theory, I make no firm conclusions, I have only
From: Foks0904
Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive your
own childishness.
And this kind of talk from you to me – impugning the motives of anyone who does
not follow the anti-science rhetoric which your are dishing out here - is that
indicative of
From: Foks0904
And by the way if I was a true believer in any theory (like how you shill for
Mill's work)
You apparently do not read the posting here, or do not understand what you
read. I have been one of Mills most vocal critics.
Please find somewhere else to troll.
Jones
Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.
From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own reality
tunnels, and diversity is of course important to any evolving ecology,
everyone has to be more flexible/adaptive in their thinking processes, and
This whole thread began because you misunderstood something you read (taken
posted form from a private forum you're not even a part of) and blew it
out of proportion. You're the one with a chip on your shoulder -- that's
not my problem. Spare me the self-righteous indignation. Name call and be
Are you serious? What a joke. Get a thicker skin Axil.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Foks continues to performs a hatchet job on us one at a time in our turn.
From: Foks0904 on me - Even though we are all entitled to our own
reality tunnels, and
If you go out of your way to create an echo chamber by chasing off people
who disagree with you, you're well on your way to achieving that -- a forum
equivalent of an intellectual mono-culture. Shame on you, Axil, seriously.
I disagree with some of you, occasionally engage in snarky
Axil, He says he is young, which is obvious … so we could cut him some slack on
immaturity – if … that is, he were not trying to lecture others as if he had a
unique skill set for this field … or … if he had made any contribution here.
I looked back through the archives and cannot find a
Hear yourself foks:
Jones -- You are so hell-bent on winning an argument you can't perceive
your own childishness. I'm probably not even half your age and I know how
to act like more of an adult than you. Drop the adolescent LOL and
winning-is-everything attitude, will you please?
Please raise
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Where are the experimentally based technical points that will convince
Jones to change his opinions?
The papers by Miles might convince him, but evidently he has not read them.
I say that because he keeps making assertions that contradict those papers.
A
there is even more recent information on that test
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/nasa-cannae-drive-and-emdrive.html
and previous
http://nextbigfuture.com/search/label/emdrive
read also wired answer to some critics
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive
I did not fully describe Beene's argument. There are three postulates, not
two:
1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to study helium, or
they may not have.
2. They may have done such a study, or they may not have.
3. Assuming 1 and 2 are true, the study might be positive, or
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:27:17 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Since hydrino.org is dead as a discussion group (it just redirects to BLP's
site) is there a forum where people are still talking about GUToCP etc.?
societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com
This is a moderated
This is absurd spin by Rothwell, but I will waste the time with another
rebuttal, so that the archive, at least, will include some bit of sanity on
this subject.
Of course we already know that JR made the thousand-fold mistake in what he
reported as the level of ambient helium, so his judgment
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
1. The IMRA laboratory may have had a good opportunity to
study helium, or they may not have.
No one, including Rothwell thinks that they “may not have had” an excellent
opportunity, along with proper MS available. So, of course they
If this phenomenon is really true, it suggests a number of questions, e.g. :
A reactionless thrust means that the power output could be very large since
power = thrust * speed, and if the speed is high so is the power, so COP
could be very big.
Does the RF power needed increase as the speed
From: Jed Rothwell
Every fact you have pointed to so far has been wrong. Flat out wrong.
Really. Here are the most important facts in this discussion, and none of them
is wrong.
1)no gamma radiation is detected
2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D
In reply to Foks0904 .'s message of Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:36:55 -0400:
Hi,
It's findings like this that have lead some people to the same conclusion:
Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of
sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the FP Heat Effect
(aka
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
1)no gamma radiation is detected
True.
2)there is not the least shred of proof in physics of D+D fusion
without gammas
Oh yes there is. See: M. Miles and others doing cold fusion. That's proof.
Pretty good experimental proof. Your assertion
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-particle-detector-hints-dark-space.html
Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space
*As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons,
the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from
dark matter collisions
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-particle-detector-hints-dark-space.html
Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space
*As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons,
the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from
dark matter collisions
I have to admit, despite _wanting_ an _easier_ way to adopt as working
hypothesis Mills's theory -- which I'm convinced is quite plausible -- than
Robin's extrapolations beyond where Mills himself will go with his
theory; Jones
Beene is no help in fulfilling my desire to avoid delving into Robin's
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones is now just trying to save face (pointlessly so) ...
This would be quite difficult to do at this point.
Eric
43 matches
Mail list logo
