On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There must be an underlying psychological reason for thinking this way
> because it is not based on logic or experience; a prejudice in judgment or
> a unfounded distaste may be at play. Both Rossi and Defkalion have released
> this isotopic depen
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
If some inconvenient fact does not fit into one's train of ideas and
> theories, just ignore it or even discredit it regardless if that fact may
> well be the turnkey to unlocking the ultimate truth.
>
I will ignore the weird tone of this reply an
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> Don’t let petty jealousy distort your view of history, for we are living
> during a turning point in civilization unlike any that have gone before;
> primarily brought about by efforts and genius of John Hadjichristos.
>
I can't tell whether you'
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:38 PM, blaze spinnaker wrote:
Well, we don't know how long it was actually at 1.6T
>
> Maybe that was a spike
>
This is a good point. It might have been a sharp transient that is seen
intermittently. I personally don't know much about the claim. I see it is
mentioned i
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The question boils down to who do you really believe. DO you believe what
> Mary Yugo tells you, or do you believe what J.Hadjichristos is saying.
>
>
>
> I have, do, and will trust J.Hadjichristos unconditionally in every case.
> If you trust Mary
I just tried an experiment -- it seems my iPhone is not very magnetic. ;)
Eric
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM, hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Keys are brass or aluminum?
>>
>
> Sure. But there's perhaps a watc
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM, hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Keys are brass or aluminum?
>
Sure. But there's perhaps a watch, a steel keyring, a belt buckle, metal
components in electronics that are being carried, an iPhone. Perhaps he
was wearing only brass and aluminium items and using a brass o
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
What is often thrown-out to gain a smile can have the opposite effect
> without a smiley ... but I was hoping that the insight referred to the
> ghost
> of Edgar Allan Poe, given that even without the Internet, or rants about
> Creationism, Poe's
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
Anybody that agrees with Mary Y in any way needs to reevaluate his
> thinking processes.
>
Do you think Mary's question about the claim of a strong magnetic was
mistaken? If not, on what basis do you believe there was a strong magnetic
field su
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM, DJ Cravens wrote:
I find it interesting that they do not mention the role of Deuterium.
> So p+d and d+d systems might be outside of their claims if it is required.
>
Earlier discussions here raised the point that patent applications would do
well to omit anythi
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:07 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
> Not that revolutionary [...] Eventually, the rest of the industry will
> catch on. At present the vast majority of our society hasn't even
> comprehended the ramifications of what they will s
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:25 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
I doubt that isotopically enriched material (other than perhaps H 2) is
> needed.
> In the real world, you just make your sample larger.
>
I doubt there is much if any of an isotope effect. This one says to me,
"red herring."
Eric
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree that a resonant condition occurs at the size and temperatures that
> you point out, but it is less clear that any exact dimension will be
> important to the operation of the reactors.
I wonder whether particle size is a red herring.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM, H Veeder wrote:
The harm is not they don't meet expectations. The harm is that they
> provide no explanation whenever they fail to meet expectations.
> Playing with people's emotions is not harmless game.
>
Personally, I do not mind unguarded statements about wha
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
These questions we have raised are not triggered by distrust of Defkalion.
> Not on my part, anyway.
>
If a company wants observers to take their statements at face value,
establishing trust and credibility is important. It is straightforward
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I can see you a paper if you are interested. But it is very large and very
> hard to understand. Are you up for that?
>
Not if it is hard to understand. But no doubt you understand it and can
help us along.
Eric
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
See the NASA patent for LENR. It claims that polaritons are the active
> agent in their reaction.
>
Yes, it would seem that Zawodny and Bushnell have a certain idea about what
is going on. (Note that they're not the same as NASA.)
Eric
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is at
> the bottom of their reaction.
>
Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.
Eric
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What creates the huge magnetic and electric fields? You are way. way off
> the mark. Something is happening that you don't yet know about. I suggest
> you study nanoplasmonics.
>
Perhaps I will, once I'm looking for something to do that is unrela
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Note that for acceleration, you need electrostatic charge -- ionized
> hydrogen or, if you go along with the Defkalion paper, Rydberg hydrogen.
>
I take that back; there may be no need for acceleration. It might be
sufficient for the hy
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's
>hypothesis.
>2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
>3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Chuck Sites wrote:
To me, it looks like the device ionizes H gas and accelerates it into the
> (special) Ni lattice. If the Ni is ground.
>
Yes -- it does look like that. Note that for acceleration, you need
electrostatic charge -- ionized hydrogen or, if you g
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Chuck Sites wrote:
If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.
>
If it was hot fusion, Mats Lewan would be dead from the neutrons and
gammas. It must either have been chemical, or it was nucle
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation
> which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory equations.
>
It bothers me too.
> They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state." H
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I would like to hear more theory discussed. LENR needs good scientifically
> credible theory presented to lend it credibility. How are you in that
> area? When MY was here, mailboxes became full with tons of nonsense and
> important subjects were
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Vorl Bek wrote:
People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr
>
>
Thank you Vorl. That was really neat.
Also a cautionary tale -- this is what will happen to a person if you're
cut loose and your jet pack malfunctions.
Er
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
just venting the steam outside the room so we can see it on video to see
> if any portion is dry would be a big boost… In fact John could easily
> release a video of that now to be verified later..
>
Unfortu
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Vorl Bek wrote:
I'd also like to know how you can feel
> comfortable in testing a nuclear fusion device, with limited
> experience, with guests present, without any radiation monitoring
> and without any meltdown or explosion protection for the observers.
>
> Fina
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Simple is good! They achieved that with this test
>
My favorite simple test -- boil a large barrel of water for an extended
period of time, feeding it with a measured input flow to keep the water
topped off, and measuring of the power com
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered.
That seems like a lot. Here is 10 kilowatts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN5-nhcjH_A&list=PLF5DF775E5D70960F
Eric
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Craig wrote:
I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power.
> There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power
> should have been divided by 5.
>
> I can't remember where I read this, however.
>
That would make some se
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It is obvious that this reading remained stuck at 100 C during a lot of
> time as the power output was being ramped up. I expected this to occur.
At first I thought the demonstration was completely copacetic from the
limited amount of vide
Thank you for the details.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:09 PM, wrote:
it may also explain the Ni results, though I don't think it would explain
> why
> 61Ni is unreactive.
>
Of the different things we've heard over the past few days, I'm inclined as
follows:
- High temperatures in the nickel/h
I have two questions for Robin (or anyone else who might know). First,
some context.
In a metal lattice, normally the electrons are highly localized around the
lattice sites. In the example of palladium, if you look at a density map
of the electron orbitals, they are highly clustered around the
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It appears that the actual motion of the Ni and H atoms is still far
> smaller than that required to breach the coulomb barrier. I would like to
> find that thermal or sound alone is enough to lead to LENR, but it just
> does not seem to be
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
When the lattice atoms are closest due to phonon oscillation, the Ni
> electron cloud is at maximum distortion. With an abundance of H atoms in a
> highly excited state, the nucleii of both atoms (Ni and H) have an
> increased probability of
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Jack Cole wrote:
With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP
> suggesting the temperature needs to be >179C to initiate the reaction, I am
> wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel.
>
This is a very interest
I wrote:
Also note that the Curie temp for nickel is 357 C. I believe above that
> temperature nickel would lose any permanent magnetism. So if there is a
> strong field above that temperature, I assume it would be induced from
> something going on with the reaction.
>
Thinking a little more, I
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM, David Roberson wrote:
My first inclination is to assume some form of superconductivity interacts
> with the heat generation.
>
Superconductivity, at least of the two kinds we're familiar with, seems
like a stretch at these temperatures.
Eric
Also note that the Curie temp for nickel is 357 C. I believe above that
temperature nickel would lose any permanent magnetism. So if there is a
strong field above that temperature, I assume it would be induced from
something going on with the reaction.
Eric
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Da
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It would not be out of line to assume that there is no relationship to the
> Debye temperature whatsoever. This might just be a guess on their part.
That's exactly what I was thinking. The Debye temp might be important, or
it might be a
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
It seems to me that LENR can be considered more like a religion going
> forward.
Douglas Morrison would agree with you.
We will be facing disease, pestilence, death, and massive property loss as
> a species in the triple digit trillion dollar
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
We Also learned importance of exceeding Debye temp but regarding lack of
> dependence on isotopes I think this reflects just how marginal the
> resistive heating method is compared to using spark plugs. Rossi
Alan Fletcher quoted MFMP:
We had the fortune to be in direct Skype chat contact with Mats Lewin
> during the experiment and it was definitely live, we were able to ask Mats
> to pose questions, challenges and do additional testing during the run and
> saw near real time responses including watchi
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Perhaps they have. I do not have any information on this, or any test
> results. Perhaps they have had tests under NDAs.
>
I recall claims to the effect that they have some big partnerships underway
or under the works. If this is correct,
;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>> Today, Defkalion stated that th
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields
> capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of
> the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage.
> That huge field is p
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
Gee [ and we won't even get the final report =8-( ] --- wishing you the
> best for your ongoing endeavors.
>
Same here. That's too bad. Good luck with your next engagement.
Forbes and Wired are practically the only mainstream publications
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
No dependence on isotopes!
By isotopes, I take it you're referring to the nickel and not the hydrogen?
Or was the comment directed both to the nickel (and any other part of the
substrate), together with the hydrogen? (I.e., it does not ma
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
Unfettered access to unlimited fusion energy you can generate in your DIY
> basement lab probably has a few downsides.
For sure. Any of the following would cause some inconvenience:
- The downsizing of energy companies, loss of jobs an
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
I suspect that is not the date of something that happened, but instead
> people catching up with Rossi's October 2012 demo.
>
Small but important detail -- 2011, not 2012.
Eric
Many of you will already know about Google Trends, a service of Google that
lets you get a sense of the relative frequency of searches. Here is a
graph of searches for "cold fusion" and "LENR".
http://goo.gl/4lBseu
This graph may be a little disappointing at first, because the impression
is that
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Moab Moab wrote:
Regarding the setup of the demontration: "The demonstration was not a
> scientific validation, thus nothing was validated."; "Defkalion was fully
> in control of the setup."; "The wires were probably rigged."; "They could
> not inspect the inside
On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:36, "Jones Beene" wrote:
> After all, Missouri is the “Show Me State” a motto that implies “a certain
> self-deprecating stubbornness and devotion to simple common sense.” They
> looked, they saw, and they acted accordingly.
My family goes back to Missouri, and I have be
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Fifty thousand tons of water, the amount displaced by the Berengaria,
> would, if exploited as described, suffice to shift Ireland to the middle of
> the Atlantic. . . .
>
Sounds vaguely like a veiled joke.
Eric
>From the quoted paragraph:
If correct, their claimed detection of significant amounts of radioactive
> Tritium production is an extremely interesting experimental result because
> over the past 24years, out of the hundreds of thousands of LENR experiments
> conducted, literally only a handful hav
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM, H Veeder wrote:
>From the article:
The idea [of increasing mass] may be plausible, but it comes with a big
> problem: it can't be tested. Mass is what’s known as a dimensional
> quantity, and can be measured only relative to something else.
What I don't quite
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I suppose that now that the scam detection squad is going to be involved
> the the skeptics will completely go away. For some reason I suspect that
> the bar will be raised as usual.
>
I agree. Even if this skeptical group were to sign o
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:50 PM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
It doesn't matter what they discover, the reputation of Defkalion
>
Perhaps. This may have just been something they were approached about by
the paranormal investigators, and they thought they would try to spin it
up. (I wonder whether we
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
- electrons tunneling ‘thru’ the nucleus
>
That's a weird one. When I first read about that one, it seemed a little
off to me. There's this super dense quark-gluon plasma with all this
energy, and the electron flies through the sea quarks
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata
> Effect, and the Stringham Effect.
>
Yes -- F&P effect tends to refer to D2O electrolysis with palladium (or
maybe titanium).
In more general contexts, I personally like "
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
http://www.claudiopace.it/giappone-fusione-fredda/?goback=%2Egde_4132340_member_257368745
Can I just say how cool it is that someone can point to a blog post in
Italian, and the non-Italian speakers can go read a decent automatic
translatio
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched uranium
> and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle.
>
One problem with neutrons is that we want fewer of them in the world, not
more of them.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder wrote:
How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic
> energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles?
>
> Can it be compared with known collisions?
>
It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV /
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I assumed that you were describing an experiment where the exit direction
> was measured...my mistake.
You were right -- the setup was like this:
d beam ---> | thin foil | ---> MeV particles ---> | Si detector |
So the low energy d's
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, wrote:
The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows
> that
> the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction.
>
If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an
interesting detail that the particles were emitted f
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Occurrence of a nuclear reaction is the only proof that matters. Once a
> nuclear reaction is demonstrated to occur, making commercial energy only
> requires good engineering.
>
I wish this were true, in and of itself. But people have known a
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Did you calculate the actual number of Ds impacting the target metal to
> generate a reasonable amount of energy? My quick estimate suggests that
> the number of energetic protons generated was far below enough to replace
> the beam energy.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, I recall mention of an experiment of that nature but do not recall
> specifics. Could you offer a link that I might follow?
>
The thread was here [1].
Defkalion mention Rydberg hydrogen. An interesting thing that I recently
read was
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
My current line of thinking for the ion beam stuff -- there is something in
> the electronic structure of the substrate that is at work here, be it
> plasmons, or shielding, or cracks, my favorite, sufficient deceleration in
> the
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the
> ECAT?
>
This gets back to the earlier thread on the ion beam and glow discharge
experiments. I suspect that some of what they're seeing in those
experiments is rea
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target
> Vortex is.You have benefited.
>
Vortex is everything to everyone. Benefitting from the threads here is
like having someone read tea leaves. There is a lot of intere
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:52 PM, blaze spinnaker wrote:
I think the conversation is primarily of interest to a limited group and
> probably just noise for the rest of the list.
>
> It's usually a good idea to do this when threads get overly long and only
> certain people are participating.
>
You g
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM, wrote:
Assuming the LENR claims are correct, does anyone know how much more
> economical LENR approaches are at generating cold neutrons?
>
>From the experiments I've seen so far in my reading, there are two typtes
of neutron emissions -- random and occasional bu
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, H Veeder wrote:
Which paper describes the use of 300 eV?
>
The paper I mentioned by Chambers is relevant. But I recall seeing a
different paper, possibly where normal dd branches were seen, in which the
energy of the beam was between 200-300 eV. I will try to ke
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:08 PM, H Veeder wrote:
> Which paper describes the use of 300 eV?
>
I was recalling things from memory and appear to have gotten a few details
mixed up. Thankfully, not the most important one about the energy of the
beam.
The paper is [1], below, by G.P. Chambers and
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
and results in helium
>>
>
> This and, of course, heat.
>
Also, 4He is a known result of LENR in the context of deuterided palladium.
But we don't really know what the product is in the context of Ni/H or
Pd/H, etc. So w
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
However, clarifying it this way implies we have an appropriate definition
> of "hot fusion" that is amenable to distinguishing from cold fusion or
> LENR, or at least limiting its scope.
Also, is it hot fusion if you get the normal dd branches
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Cold fusion does not occur in plasma
>
We don't know where cold fusion can occur. Some enterprising scientists or
inventor might show at some point that the Papp engine was producing LENR.
We're largely still at the beginning.
> and result
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
They sure started out on a large scale! No lack of confidence.
>
This looks like a gadget right out of the Renaissance.
It seems like if you're making a prototype, you should start small, so that
it costs less to iterate on any changes that w
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, wrote:
(The kinetic energy of the original proton has to go
> somewhere, so there is more total energy available to the reaction,
> probably
> resulting in different branching ratios.)
>
This point reminds me of some related questions that I've had:
- In a sys
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:36 PM, wrote:
>You won't get fission from the mid range elements by adding a single
> nucleon.
> >That doesn't happens at the ends of the periodic table.
>
> That should read:- "That only happens at the ends of the periodic table."
>
What are the approximate upper and lo
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Are they languishing? I thought that several of these have been granted.
> Perhaps I misunderstand the new patent laws.
>
I haven't been following the patent situation too closely. I vaguely
recall some patents being granted, but I don't remem
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:55 PM, wrote:
Perhaps of interest -
> The following is a list of recent LENR-related patent applications:
>
> http://www.google.com/patents/sitemap/en/Sitemap/G21/G21B/G21B_3.html
Thank you, Lou. I wasn't aware that there was a patent category for LENR.
This could po
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery wrote:
Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
> one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
> formal in the sense that any theory is formal.
>
I think we are largely in agreement here. The
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery wrote:
I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
> virtually by definition. You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
> proxy and then you went
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery wrote:
They are necessary so you can perform experiments. If you don't like an
> operational definition then you need to say why.
>
It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
without requiring a formal definition. Perhaps
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, James Bowery wrote:
Artificial Intelligence is a field that has requires a rigorous definition
> of intelligence.
>
Doesn't a formal definition of intelligence risk placing unwarranted bounds
upon a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, effectively reducing it to a se
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 8:26 AM, blaze spinnaker
wrote:
Because the implications, if the AHE report is accurate, are overwhelming.
> And while it will be net positive, there will be massive creative
> destruction that will occur if the eCat is real. ... So to idly discuss
> these claims without
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
The device has been examined by competent people, but perhaps not as
> perfectly as anyone would want. Nevertheless, enough to satisfy investors,
> which is the only people who matter at this stage.
>
I like this summary.
Eric
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Berke Durak wrote:
Every camera has to be individually
> calibrated. You need to know the transmittance of the optics and the
> response of
> the sensor. You need to properly set the amplifier parameters;
> corrections for dark current have to be applied. Non-u
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> i. The first author,G. Levi, has been closely involved in numerous tests
> and promotions of the E‐Cat together with the inventor, A. Rossi, over the
> last 2½years. His independence is not as clear as one would wish,
>
The implicit subtext
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Berke Durak wrote:
So they want a custom-made camera with raw output from the sensor!?
> Had this been done,
> wouldn't they have written something like:
>
I doubt it. The way I read this point was that they wanted the raw data
feed from the IR camera rather th
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jack Cole wrote:
I can see where you would think that, but I think they are saying that
> +.25W is at the 95% CI.
>
Personally, I find it hard to see how they could obtain 2.5 W at 19 sigma
from a 30 W baseline using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, a glass tube an
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Jack Cole wrote:
They don't present the actual SD here:
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/285-us-eu-cell-calibration-results
> .
>
> We can get it by working backwards. (.25/1.96=.13)
>
I was working backwards from 2.5 W at 95 percent con
Twelve days ago I wrote:
Presumably the experiment ran for a while, but nonetheless one gets the
> impression that the tritium is more than simply the result of some side
> reaction, and it looks like the main daughter in this case.
>
This was in connection with a slide presented by Michael McKub
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
For the MFMP calorimeters currently being used, with the glass and the SB
> equation, I suspect it will not be that convincing for people until they
> see 10-20 W excess heat (integrated excess power, including periods of
> endotherm).
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM, H Veeder wrote:
Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
> excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
> during the calibration tests. The EU cell with the active wire was
> indicating up to 2.5W of ex
I wrote:
Another important parameter would be the energy. Perhaps if you multiplied
> the normal d+d cross sections by the curve above you would get a suitable
> function for σ(E,r).
>
I take that back. The distance parameter (r) already implicitly takes
deuteron energy into account, since the
I wrote:
It seems like the cross section would drop off with the square of the
> distance from the spectator nucleus. Perhaps something like this:
>
> σ(r) = 1/(1 + A*r^2),
>
> where A is a constant that is empirically determined; e.g.,
>
> http://i.imgur.com/eWu4K1i.jpg
>
Another import
1501 - 1600 of 2387 matches
Mail list logo
