I would like to introduce an alternate mental model of the process that you
offer in is post.
Currently, it is universally accepted as physics gospel that quarks are
bound so tightly by the strong force that they can never exist in isolation
or recombine in a low energy environment.
What LENR doe
Thank you Mark for this article. It is good to keep "Cold Fusion" in the
minds of the financial community. If Cold Fusion pans out, it could be the
single largest business on the planet 10 years after the introduction of
the first practical product. It could be $5T-10T/year - so what if the
prob
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Ruby wrote:
I call it whatever name needs be, for whatever audience I have.
>
Spoken like a true politician. You go, girl!
Names are important. They have power, and, they flip like fashion.
But no matter what you'd like to call it, when the technology descends,
you will not decide the name, the company will not decide the name, the
public will.
The users of any technology will generate their own language to des
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 "
I make the distinction between the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, The Arata
Effect, and the Stringham Effect. All are cold fusion, but the names
identify different methods and give credit. As for the name, everyone
knows about cold fusion. Changing the name only invites a charge of
trying to hide
FPP is good!
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the
> reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon
> in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be appropriate as it
> na
Yes if it were an experimental error it would be a phenomenon for the
reason I stated: Physics authorities view it as a sociological phenomenon
in which case Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon would still be appropriate as it
named the original perpetrators of this "incompetence and delusion" that
went o
James Bowery wrote:
>
> A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon”
>
I think "Fleischmann-Pons effect" is more in line with the names of similar
discoveries. Some people do call it this.
It would not be a real effect if it turns out to be an experimental error,
but
My response at the Mark Gibbs blog:
A more neutral, and useful, name would be “Fleischmann Pons Phenomenon”
since, at this point, it is interpreted by physics authorities to be merely
a sociological phenomenon that originated with the two named perpetrators,
and, by those skeptical of the physics
Robert Dorr wrote:
> Personally I think the phrase "Cold Fusion" describes itself fairly well.
>
I think so too.
I get why it upsets the plasma fusion people. I do not understand why it
bothers other people, such as the people who hang out at Wikipedia, or
Steve Krivit. They do not have a dog
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 21:06, H Veeder wrote:
X-Rated Fusion
XXX Fusion
Only to be applied after 10:00 PM ;-)
Kind regards,
Rob
X-Rated physics.
Not for prudes.
Harry
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder wrote:
> X-Rated Fusion
>
> XXX Fusion
> Harry
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
>>
>> "I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energ
X-Rated Fusion
XXX Fusion
Harry
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
>
> "I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much
> further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood."
>
> Yes! It is a bit l
Personally I think the phrase "Cold Fusion" describes itself fairly
well. When it comes to the way fusion was initially obtained, which
is very hot indeed, this alternate, new method of creating fusion is
pretty damned cold, no matter which way you go about it. Maybe we
should call it "New Fu
When I discuss my interests with people that do not follow LENR progress I find
that the best way to get them to understand which subject I am referring to is
to use the term "Cold Fusion". That always works!
There has been at least one main movie that many typical people has watched
where th
Why not call cold fusion: "This is no threat to hot fusion" (TINTTHF)
and count on every one being as easily fooled as this discussion
assumes?
Ed
On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote:
3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible
Nanoplasmonic Induced Transmutation (NIT). The name needs to be generalized
to describe all know anomalous nuclear reactions which are outside the
purview of orthodox nuclear physics. This should cover lightning reactions,
nebular, solar, and the many forms of cavatation.
At this early stage, it
the
> understanding that hydrogen includes all isotopes of H.
>
> :)
>
> D2
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:10 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why "Cold Fusion" Has to Die
> From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
&g
Hi,
On 15-7-2013 16:11, Jones Beene wrote:
3) PCRPF or polariton catalyzed reversible proton fusion
The thing is you need some kind of catchy Acronym.
The above could be abbreviated to Polca Repro fusion; which can again be
abbreviated to PoRe fusion ;-)
And "pore fusion" could in essenc
I still label mine- HOPE , hydrogen or proton effect. With the understanding
that hydrogen includes all isotopes of H.
:)
D2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:53:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why "Cold Fusion" Has to Die
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Adrian Ashfield
Adrian Ashfield posted an apt comment at Forbes:
"I don’t see that calling it 'Anomalous Energy System (AES)' gets us much
further as it won’t be anomalous once it’s understood."
Yes! It is a bit like calling them "x-rays" where "x" means "unknown."
There are countless words with origins based
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf
*Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
targets in heavy water *
There is an area a science where orthodox science gradually descends into
pseudoscience as the power that activates the induced nuclear react
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:46:46 -0400
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Vorl Bek wrote:
>
>
> > And when 'spam' had its meaning changed from 'unsolicited
> > commercial email' to 'any email you do not want to receive', I
> > figured scoundrels were trying to pull the wool over our eyes
> > to somehow make sp
ous, and SCIENCE is about
understanding ANOMALIES!
Their pitiful excuse is just that. pitiful, and unbecoming a scientist.
-Mark Iverson
From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Gibbs
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Why
ChemE Stewart wrote:
Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
Not gonna happen. People who use technology from its earliest stages tend
to stick to original words for things. To the end of his life Orville
Wright spelled his invention "aeroplane." That is more technically accurate
Vorl Bek wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200
> Moab Moab wrote:
>
> > That article doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
> > listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
> >
> > I think that any non-listening scientists
Plus, Jed would have to change the name of his book :)
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Moab Moab 'moab2...@googlemail.com');>> wrote:
>
>
>> You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
>> listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
>>
>> I think tha
Moab Moab wrote:
> You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
> listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
>
> I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
> published with the new name will immediately figure out that "it's plain
> old c
My response posted at the Forbes site:
With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion
is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as
plasma fusion does.
No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is
a very expensi
Since Mark's suggestion will prompt a flurry of thought, and possibly a few
more suggestions which are influenced by the present agenda of interested
observers, here are a few alternatives from the far-fringe (with a
rationale) - pending future evidence for accuracy. Obviously, there is a
slant, on
]:Why "Cold Fusion" Has to Die
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
[mg]
Mark, you are correct about many theories being proposed but you are
wrong about there being no theory that explains the effect. I have
described such a theory in print and will give a major talk about the
model at ICCF-18. This model can explain all the observed behavior as
well as how the
While AES is a preferable name to either LENR or cold fusion, renaming now
is probably premature ...
...under the circumstances, it seems to me that we are within a year or two
of finding the precise cause for the anomaly - so, why not wait a bit
longer?
From: mark.gi...@gmail.co
>From Mark Gibbs:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
Hi Mark,
I suspect your latest FORBES article will generate plenty of discussion
here. Obviously, you suspect something interesting is happening. something
that warrants further research. I ge
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:51 +0200
Moab Moab wrote:
> That article doesn't make sense to me.
>
> You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
> listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
>
> I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
> p
Wait a minute! Did not Widom, Larson, and Krivit not figure this out?
Frank Z
-Original Message-
From: Moab Moab
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why "Cold Fusion" Has to Die
That article doesn't make sense to me.
You are proposi
That article doesn't make sense to me.
You are proposing that a "name change" will make non-listeners into
listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all.
I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper
published with the new name will immediately figure out that "it's pl
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
[mg]
39 matches
Mail list logo
