Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Eric Walker wrote: He himself seems to be aware of the implications of tritium, and he goes to > pains to try to establish that either the tritium results are completely > new science or they're due to (intentional) contamination. I believe he > was trying to convince the world that there was cl

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: This is a thoroughly embarrassing event in the history of science. It's a > huge story, in fact. I've thought of asking Taubes to look at it again. > I would not attempt to resuscitate Gary Taubes. He was a card carrying member of the

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

It's entropy, all curled up in those 7 extra dimensions of space. The radiation at its surface can make it very energetic, alphas and betas, the larger the particle the more energetic. Entropic flux creates gravity, electricity and magnetism. It flows and it orbits and 95% of the universe is compr

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

“Obviously, if it is not a nuclear reaction (there are other possibilities besides fusion).” It could be accelerated alpha radiation from a partial lowering of the coulomb barrier. Alpha radiation is just doubly ionized helium. We can distinguish this helium production from fusion by that produc

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 01:49 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified whic

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 01:16 PM 12/29/2012, James Bowery wrote: From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. "Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 11:38 AM 12/29/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

> From: "Alain Sepeda" > I I can be critic on LENR community, like on mainstream science > community, is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... > > NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT Ditto and likewise. As Einstein wrote : Experimentum summus judex (Experiment is the suprem

RE: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

>From Mark, >>> And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... >> Peter's fault? Whatever... > I was joking. Of course it wasn't his "fault" ... > this may not be the place for levity. Vortex-l often displays levity. Some enjoy it. Some don't, particularly those who may

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Dear Friends, I gladly take the respondibility for the Question, it had a beneficial effect on Vortex because it has generated a long thread dedicated to LENR. The discussions were as usual 80% (Pareto, see my Blog) parallel monologs but have revealed some interesting opinions and condensates of o

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Well, take a look at this paper, which was presented this month in JCF13 earlier this month: http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057 Not after the fusion, but well, some ideas of what might happen during fusion. 2012/12/30 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > > He's only analyzed the symmetrical 4-body problem. Taka

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 05:28 PM 12/29/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. Eek. No. TSC theory isn't "a variation of hot fusion." But maybe you could define the words to make it so. T

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 05:04 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. Great, Mark. How do you want to approach this, to "find out"? We can tell you that the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect is the result o

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Eric Walker wrote: > About the sensationalizers and entrepreneurs who make claims, beyond Rossi > and Defkalion there is Brillouin, and further afield, there are Lattice > Energy, the Rohner brothers and Nanospire. We have a lot of fun analyzing > their claims in great detail here. But one shou

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 04:14 PM 12/29/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument?

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

At 05:07 PM 12/29/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misu

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2012, at 16:42, Mark Gibbs wrote: > I was joking. Of course it wasn't his "fault" ... this may not be the place > for levity. Levity is difficult to pick up on during a fine-grained discussion of details, unfortunately. About the sensationalizers and entreprene

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

I am of the opinion that Anderson localization is among the many Quantum mechanical mechanisms that are central to and underlie the some lines of LENR technology. These lines involve hairy nickel nano-particles and cracks in metal lattices to be more specific. American physicist Philip W. Anderso

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > From Mark Gibbs > > > And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... > > Peter's fault? Whatever... > I was joking. Of course it wasn't his "fault" ... this may not be the place fo

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: So what?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making > significant claims about productizing something that they contend is > CF/LENR. > Rossi is the only one I can think of. I suggest you ignore him. He has not published any scientific data. The only way you can

RE: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

>From Mark Gibbs >> Look, I am sorry, > No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. >> ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. > Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. Rothwell is what Rothwell does. I would suggest you get over it, par

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: Ye gods, man. Calm down. > I am calm. If you think I am exited you are projecting. This cognitive dissonance on your side. I am calm because I have been writing this sort of thing for decades; I can do it in my sleep. Also because I used to teach. I am quite used to dealing wi

Fwd: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

-- Forwarded message -- From: Edmund Storms Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic To: Mark Gibbs Cc: Edmund Storms On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Mark

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

That's not correct. There is a theory that considers cold fusion as a variation of conventional hot fusion. This is Takahashi's TSC theory. TSC is a tetrahedron of hydrogens bound by coherent electrons, which also happen to be in a tetrahedral form, overlapping the protons. As you know, 2 tetrahed

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

The comparison to penicillin is instructive. Like most discoveries, this was developed and used extensively long before anyone understood how it worked in theory. Long before they could have understood it. Penicillin was developed in the 1940s, in a crash project to treat WWII casualties. Doctors

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as >> someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to >> attack the man while you address the argument? >> > > Look, I am sorry, >

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to > vortex, so this is my way of communicating. > > Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct > in stating that the effect has not result

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's > misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the > man while you address the argument? > Look, I am sorry, but your statements violate the scientific method at an elementary

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are >>> forced to be uncivil. >>> >> >> One is never "forced" to be uncivil. >> > > I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are >> forced to be uncivil. >> > > One is never "forced" to be uncivil. > I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. Your statements violate the princi

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > >> Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently >> accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject >> to many interpretations, otherwise known as "*conjectures*" in m

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

James Bowery wrote: > Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently > accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject > to many interpretations, otherwise known as "*conjectures*" in more > rigorous fields such as mathematics. > Correct. Althoug

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > >> I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. >>> >> >> Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid >> being called out for incivility. >> > > No, it is pro-forma, Japanese sty

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear > reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified > which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. > > Correct? If it is correct, t

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

I I can be critic on LENR community, like on mainstream science community, is that FG mania to focus on THEORY... NOT HAVING A THEORY IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE A FACT you learn that when you are a kid interested in science... Me too I want to be abrasive because it seems that most science com

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear > reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified > which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. > That is not a theory. It is an assertion. "nuclear reaction canno

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

I agree that it is not very good politic to convince. however it is clear and true. you should read the facts. i don't even understand how people can express so much doubt, when not simple usual denial. just read the data, and remind that consensus can be pathologic... history says so. the maxim

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that e

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: > I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. >> > > Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid > being called out for incivility. > No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. > "Far

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

>From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. "Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, howev

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > >> Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable >> theory? >> > > Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has b

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close > to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing > about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've wr

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: > Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable > theory? > Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mark Gibbs wrote: > > but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? >>> >> >> When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. >> >> So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a >> willow

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Mark Gibbs wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? >> > > When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. > > So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a > willow-the-wisp ... > I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant n

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

Dear Mark, Testable is a polysemantic and somewhat ambiguous word- really testable means it can be used for scaling up the process. First class theory predicts and suggests Second class theory prohibits Third class theory explains. LENR needs a 1st class theory and this goes MUCH beyond and above

Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: > > but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? > When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]

[Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic

It seems, OT-ing has become both epidemic and endemic for Vortex. This is caused probably by a relatively dead/slack season in/for core LENR. This is also relatively OT Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions http://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2012/12/greatest-inventions-2012-and-1913-editions/