Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers. Even more -- we don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't. It's hearsay at this point. I will postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain reliable data. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do you know the size of the reaction at time zero? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers. Even more -- we don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't. It's hearsay at this point. I will postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain reliable data. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do you know the size of the reaction at time zero? Perhaps you're referring to these slides? [1] (I was unable to find the Kim-Hadjichristos paper.) Yes, that brings the 0.6-1.6 Tesla DGT claim out of the realm of hearsay and into the realm of slideware (which is about as good as one can expect in this field). Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
No, nothing about that. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the clarification Frank. Did the tester indicate to you privately the reason for the delay, even if it is something they don't want to say in public? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Frank Acland ecatwo...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:45 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sorry, I just found this thread -- I didn't realize there was such controversy going on. The term 'polarized opinions' was in reference to people on the outside -- not among the testers. Frank On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there are polarized opinions on the meaning of 'polarized opinions'. From the standpoint of an optimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the outside world, but from the standpoint of a pessimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the testers. Someone could ask Frank Acland to clarify the meaning. Harry On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, you and I picked up on the most important phrase that others seems to have missed - Polarized Opinions. This by itself has got to refer to opinions of the testers, not the outside world. For why would the polarized opinions of the outside world suddenly make a difference in the release of the TIP2 report? The outside world opinion has always been polarized since the beginning, why make a difference now? especially in the context of the TIP2 release date? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, I hope you are wrong about your conclusion. It does concern me by the expression of Polarized opinions. Best case is for them to be referring to how the device operates instead of how well it works. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in the context of the statements, that the Polarized opinions is the reason. Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of the report? It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't agree like a hang jury. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I don't read it that way --- The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. The polarized opinions are those in the outside world, not within the team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say nothing to nobody until the report's out. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com
Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers
Can you tell us exactly what he said, minus your interpretation? Jojo - Original Message - From: Frank Acland To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers No, nothing about that. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the clarification Frank. Did the tester indicate to you privately the reason for the delay, even if it is something they don't want to say in public? Jojo - Original Message - From: Frank Acland To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sorry, I just found this thread -- I didn't realize there was such controversy going on. The term 'polarized opinions' was in reference to people on the outside -- not among the testers. Frank On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:26 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there are polarized opinions on the meaning of 'polarized opinions'. From the standpoint of an optimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the outside world, but from the standpoint of a pessimist it could mean the polarized opinions of the testers. Someone could ask Frank Acland to clarify the meaning. Harry On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Dave, you and I picked up on the most important phrase that others seems to have missed - Polarized Opinions. This by itself has got to refer to opinions of the testers, not the outside world. For why would the polarized opinions of the outside world suddenly make a difference in the release of the TIP2 report? The outside world opinion has always been polarized since the beginning, why make a difference now? especially in the context of the TIP2 release date? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Jojo, I hope you are wrong about your conclusion. It does concern me by the expression of Polarized opinions. Best case is for them to be referring to how the device operates instead of how well it works. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers Sure, you can be optimistic and read it that way; but it seems clear in the context of the statements, that the Polarized opinions is the reason. Reason for what? reason for not giving pre-statements about a timing or content of the report. Why would any polarized outside opinion be the reason for any delay in the timing of the release? or affect the content of the report? It seems clear. The testers can not agree on what to write. This can only mean some think it is positive, some think it is negative. They can't agree like a hang jury. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Polarized ECat Testers From: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:07:08 AM http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/20/e-cat-report-watch-thread/ As reported in e-catworld. It seems the TIP2 testers are having a lot of disagreements; hence the delay in the release of the report. This does not bode well for the ECat. I have been one of a few that think too many warning flags have been seen lately regarding the ECat. Chances of it being a Scam has increased. I don't read it that way --- The response I received was that they realize there is a great amount of interest in the report, but that because of polarized opinions surrounding the LENR and E-Cat, it was not advisable to give any pre-statements about the content of timing or the report. The polarized opinions are those in the outside world, not within the team - which wants to get it right. And, quite correctly, say nothing to nobody until the report's out. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World
Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system?
Kevin, Agreed but your arguments did make me face an issue WRT latency – which I wrongly assumed was the big difference between statistical and reliance on a very fast analog sensing loop.. every system will have the same analog latency and even your statistically driven loop will have an already closed analog feedback value that is being constantly modified by historical data or sets of algorithms derived from historical data on how the reactor responded to changes in gain previously. In theory your system SHOULD be better but my gut is telling me this isn’t the end of the story – that there are other features of PWM that will trump heated filaments as control. I will concede that statistical may be a superior method to modify a closed analog loop but hope you will in turn keep an open mind toward PWM. I kept an old 100k Varos solid state freq converter [60 to 400 hz ]alive for years beyond it’s life expectancy and was always impressed by the “statistical” waveform patterns stored as a library used to bring up and slew the output levels around as needed. Alas the wire wrap and TTL tech was pushed aside for new more efficient commercial models. Fran From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:13 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system? We're off the original subject so I think there's diminishing returns on discussing the pros cons of controlling a reaction no one yet understands and the only guy in the neighborhood with a working box is keeping mum. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: This is true, there is latency either way but IMHO PWM is safer, locks you into shutoff condition for every cycle where the most robust geometry /hotspots get a chance to diffuse and pump out energy into the immediate vicinity without melting closed. IMHO the constant drive will burn out the most robust hotspots and will need to driver a larger quanity of larger geometry regions to equal the heat generating capacity of the smaller region. There is very likely an advantage to using pwm/spark gap for the large dv/dt effect on the plasma as well. From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.commailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:59 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system? You'll have latency either way. If you take a statistical approach you monitor far more than just temperature. You can base it on a thousand parameters if you want. And not all of them change in microseconds. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Kevin, Latency will be the issue, how to instantly sense temp beyond the geometry into the plasma itself and simultaneously couple the feedback to the plasma to control it. I think Axil is correct regarding the spark gap of DGT, it is a simple PWM scheme that relies on duty factor to provide an average time in runaway instead of actually trying to for a lesser but permanent runaway state. Fran From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.commailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:36 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system? microsecond statistical control is accomplished regularly through gigabit and wifi ethernet. It is a valid example. If you're sending a billion bits/second, you're controlling on the nanosecond level. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Kevin, Statistical is OK for loose control but in a phenomena that must be kept on the brink of destruction / half way into runaway but being thermally bled by a heat sink then fast control is required, hysteris on the scale of microseconds or less. From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.commailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 12:28 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system? Actually, statistical control is a reasonably strong approach. I take ethernet as an example. 10/100 Mbit ethernet was once dominated by National Semiconductor, heavily relying on their analog background to control tightly the parameters involved. They were overtaken by a disruptive technology using DSP and statistical control. It turned out that it made the analog simpler, and the digital side of the issue meant that die shrinking took place much faster. By the time National spent $120M buying Comcore to play catchup, their die size was 60% larger than Broadcom. The next generation was gigabit ethernet, where the vast majority of the game was with DSP and Marvell entered the picture. As each generation of ethernet came out, it was more digital, more millions of transistors doing DSP where analog used to be, and eventually it was so cheap
RE: [Vo]:lenr.qumbu.com citation
... and the paper is for... ta da ... the Hellenic Navy ... OMG... it's the siege of Troy all over again, powered by Rossi's steam engine this time around ... (presumably part of the aeolipile of Hero) ... will the E-Cat be the Achilles' heel? -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher I just discovered that I got a citation in a .MIL Master's Thesis : http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573499.pdf (Nothing to see ... just a diagram, plus a link to my Steam quality document.)
[Vo]:Soviet-era Tesla Tower restarted with spectacular lightning bolts (VIDEO)
http://rt.com/news/181748-tesla-marx-generator-lightning/ 'Tesla Tower' video: Futuristic high voltage machine in lightning action near Moscow 'Tesla Tower' video: Futuristic high voltage machine in ... View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs intheir reactor. This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. Thereaction zone is located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micronparticles. The magnetic activity is observed in localize magnetictraps (LMT). Because the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by thebosenova , the magnetic reaction must be centered is atthe tips of or just beyond the nanostructures that are associated with the 5micron particles. The dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on thenanometer scale and nondestructive to micron level structures. The reactor is double faraday shielded. Was this magneticmeasurements done on an unshielded reactor. Let us assume the worst case thatthe magnetic measurements were done on an unshielded reactor. But the magneticfield must have penetrated the stainless steel pressure vessel and the metalreactor wall(s?). The tesla level field was detected at multiple points aroundthe reactor and the bosenova was depicted to occur inside the 200 micron nickelfoam. There are 20,000,000 million nanometers in 20CMs. But to thedistance of the bosenova must be added the radius of the hydrogen pressurevessel and the distance of the pressure vessel to the outside metal wall of thereactor; so 20 CMs is a worst case. There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of thebosenova because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. By the inverse square law, the power of a nanometer sized reactionis reckoned as the square of 20,000,000 with the dimension of tesla. Thatcomes to a MINIMUM of 10^^14 tesla which is correct for the creation of aquark/gluon plasma. I thought that the inverse cube law was the correct law to use but that would but the strength of the magnetic reaction into the twilight zone. I welcome opinion on this point.
RE: [Vo]:global warming?
Maybe the neighborhood feline took care of the problems? -m From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:global warming? I noticed something last week. No more bird pew on my law chairs. The robins have already left Pennsylvania and are on their way south. Maybe they know something the climate scientists do not. Frank Z
RE: [Vo]:global warming?
Farmer's Almanac sez it's gonna be awful cold this winter From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 10:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:global warming? Maybe the neighborhood feline took care of the problems? -m From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:global warming? I noticed something last week. No more bird pew on my law chairs. The robins have already left Pennsylvania and are on their way south. Maybe they know something the climate scientists do not. Frank Z
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: David Roberson The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device - which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt transformer! Go figure.
RE: [Vo]:lenr.qumbu.com citation
At 07:14 AM 8/21/2014, Jones Beene wrote: ... and the paper is for... ta da ... the Hellenic Navy ... OMG... it's the siege of Troy all over again, powered by Rossi's steam engine this time around ... (presumably part of the aeolipile of Hero) ... will the E-Cat be the Achilles' heel? Hellenic Navy, huh. I'll have you know that my Great Uncle was a Knight Commander of the Order of the Phoenix!
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod to more deductive speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/H reactor. I notice that there is a disbelief associated with this magnetic field observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstrate when they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just unbelievable counter indicative of observational reality. A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering rule of thumb as a guide to estimation. There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst case estimate, the magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micron nickel foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla. If an anapole field is involved when the field acts within a few nanometers of the source, applying second order effects might be warranted. The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore, 1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating from the 200 micron nickel foam. Dave: *I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources.* If this is the case, the field is ferromagnetic A ferromagnetic field applies only if *all* of its magnetic ions add a positive contribution to the net magnetization. The spins of all the unit field contributors must be aligned. If some of the magnetic ions *subtract* from the net magnetization (if they are partially *anti*-aligned), then the material is ferrimagnetic In materials that exhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or molecules, usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern with neighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignment of the individual magnetic contributions? The electron for example is a dipole with a north and South Pole. Any anti alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagnetic effect. One important clue to the nature of the magnetic field inside the reactor as determined by experimental observations is that the eternal magnetic field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor. This is not indicative of a ferromagnetic field. Such a field would produce a strong north pole and a strong anti-aligned south pole field with little field strength in between. If the magnetic units were anapole, any misalignment would not diminish the strength of the composite combined field. An antiferromagnetic anapole field would project equal field strength in all directions whose field strength at an arbitrary distance would be a non-additive refection of each individual’s source generators field strengths. The individual unit magnetic sources would not be additive because of their random aliments. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- *DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.* This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. The reaction zone is located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micron particles. The magnetic activity is observed in localize magnetic traps (LMT). Because the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by the bosenova , the magnetic reaction must be centered is at the tips of or just beyond the nanostructures that are associated with the 5 micron particles. The dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on the nanometer scale and nondestructive to micron level structures. The reactor is double faraday
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
What I noticed is that last year we started to have a select number of trees turn red and yellow, beginning in the first week of August. It was unusual, and people were commenting on it in the newspapers, and on television. Then we had the coldest winter since 1979. This year, nothing. Craig Manchester, NH On 08/21/2014 10:52 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Maybe the neighborhood feline took care of the problems? -m *From:*fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:43 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:global warming? I noticed something last week. No more bird pew on my law chairs. The robins have already left Pennsylvania and are on their way south. Maybe they know something the climate scientists do not. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
More vacuum in our atmosphere causes accelerated time (aging/decaying) and colder weather because we are all getting condensed by the vacuum. Too much vacuum = ice age. On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: What I noticed is that last year we started to have a select number of trees turn red and yellow, beginning in the first week of August. It was unusual, and people were commenting on it in the newspapers, and on television. Then we had the coldest winter since 1979. This year, nothing. Craig Manchester, NH On 08/21/2014 10:52 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Maybe the neighborhood feline took care of the problems? -m *From:*fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:43 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:global warming? I noticed something last week. No more bird pew on my law chairs. The robins have already left Pennsylvania and are on their way south. Maybe they know something the climate scientists do not. Frank Z
[Vo]:global warming?
Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
I agree. I think once they find the other 95% energy in the universe they will understand how F'd up they are My theory explains what creates a cool breeze... On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
The magnetic field distribution can be quite complex and depends upon how the various component fields combine. One thing that I feel comfortable in saying is that the external field must behave in such a manner that the total normal flux through any external volume element must add to zero at any particular time. The discovery of a monopole has not been established so far and that would be necessary if this were not the case. Flux must arise from some regions of the metal box and then return through others. This type of distribution would not be consistent with a constant steady state flux at every point around the device. Of course, if they are finding that the magnetic flux varies with space and time as the reaction proceeds, then perhaps it is possible for the average to work out. That would appear to be a major observation with interesting implications. If I recall, there remains a highly conductive shield surrounding the unit which would make a strong effort to slow down outside observations of the internally rapid magnetic fluctuations. The conductive metal behaves somewhat analogous to a low pass filter in electronics since it attempts to keep the magnetic flux passing through it constant. Some have suggested that the large external magnetic field is a measurement error. We must await release of additional data before anyone can draw that conclusion. Also, the interaction of an electromagnetic field and LENR has many attributes that we have been discussing. An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. This might further indicate that the low pass nature of the conductive shield ultimately dominates the external field distribution and time domain characteristics. Think of this effect as somewhat comparable to the way an oscilloscope views the impulse response of an electronic low pass filter. What you see is so strongly influenced by the filter that the output signal no longer closely resembles its original shape prior to filtering. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 12:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod tomore deductive speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/Hreactor. I notice that there is a disbelief associated with thismagnetic field observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstratewhen they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just unbelievablecounter indicative of observational reality. A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering ruleof thumb as a guide to estimation. There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst caseestimate, the magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micronnickel foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla. If an anapole field is involved when thefield acts within a few nanometers of the source, applying second ordereffects might be warranted. The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore,1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating fromthe 200 micron nickel foam. Dave: I personally think that the field is the net vectorsum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large asis suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If this is the case, the field isferromagnetic A ferromagnetic field applies only if allof its magnetic ions add a positive contribution to the net magnetization. Thespins of all the unit field contributors must be aligned. If some of the magnetic ions subtract from the netmagnetization (if they are partially anti-aligned), then the material isferrimagnetic In materials thatexhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or molecules,usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern withneighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignmentof the individual magnetic contributions? The electron for example is a dipole with a north and SouthPole. Any anti alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagneticeffect. One important clue to the nature of the magnetic fieldinside the reactor as determined by experimental observations is that the eternalmagnetic field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor.This is not indicative of a ferromagnetic field. Such a field would produce a strong north poleand a strong anti-aligned south pole fieldwith little field strength in between. If the magnetic units
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
You forgot: The coral reefs are dissolving due to global warming The starfish are dissolving due to global warming The crabs are disappearing due to global warming Excessive algae blooms are due to global warming The frogs are disappearing due to global warming All animals are vanishing due to global warming 70% of America's citrus trees are dying due to global warming 8 million of our pigs just died due to global warming The bats are dying due to global warming The trees are dying due to global warming and on and on and on All that and last time I heard, the Dinosaurs and vegetation flourished when it was warmer with higher CO2 levels... (still doesn't mean you won't have to sell your beach house...) But at least we have 5 bars on our cell phones and 2 billion watts of microwaves blanketing us to protect us in the US at frequencies biologists say are bad for us. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away. Oh, that's a long time... 2014-08-21 14:01 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Except, in all those cases, there are specific TIME FRAMES and LOCATIONS tied to the theory. Failure to understand that is your problem. May I suggest study and learning, instead of ridicule? You know, being a, dare I say it, SCIENTIST AND SCHOLAR? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
[Vo]:writing about the Root Cause
Dear Friends I wrote this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/lenrs-future-matters-more-than-its-past.html mainly to tell you what I think - with the most direct words. about the root cause of the problems and troubles of LENR. Please appreciate my sincerity and help me to fight with the Reviewer. Wish you all the best, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? Because it aint all about science scholarship. There are added dimensions of politics, human nature, fraud, culturalism, and bullshit in the global warming thing. Your comment had far more to do with the latter items than it did with science scholarship. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Except, in all those cases, there are specific TIME FRAMES and LOCATIONS tied to the theory. Failure to understand that is your problem. May I suggest study and learning, instead of ridicule? You know, being a, dare I say it, SCIENTIST AND SCHOLAR? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Global Warming is the only field in science that can get away with an all-inclusive symptoms list. If it's hot, it's due to Global Warming If it's cold, it's due to Global Warming. If it's raining, it's due to Global Warming. If it's not raining, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are melting, it's due to Global Warming. If the Glaciers are not melting, it's due to Global Warming. If it's El Nino, it's due to Global Warming. If it's La Nina, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish die, it's due to Global Warming. If the fish don't die, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes up, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature goes down, it's due to Global Warming. If the Global Temperature stays the same, it's due to Global Warming.. on and on it goes. Everything we see is due to Global Warming. The claims never end despite an utter lack of evidence and/or common sense. It never ceases to amaze me how Global Warming alarmists do not realize that their theory is not falsifiable. Everything that happens is taken as proof of their theory. How can one discuss science in the face of such intractable ridiculousness.
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Poser: can there be an operative cross-connection between ferrite magnet anomalies and LENR thermal anomalies involving protons and the DDL ? The two seem completely unrelated at first. First, consider magnet composition, but dispense with prior assumptions that there is no embedded hydrogen in ferrites - since there are various ways to manufacture them. One way, which is preferred for hard magnets (using strontium or barium, or a mix of the two) and which will introduce hydrogen into the magnet composition even after firing at high temperature - is called the wet process. A water slurry of powdered ferrite material is pressed and then calcined. Most, but not all of the hydrogen from the water content is driven off. Even so, the final hydrogen content of wet processed ferrite magnets can be as high as 1-2 % (atomic ratio). There is a patent for a process using ammonia wetting, allowing 10% hydrogen in ferrites (atomic). Even without ammonia, a one pound billet made from the wet process could contain a gram of protons... and consequently, up to a gram of HDDL if optimally processed and conditioned. An atom of HDDL (hydrogen deep Dirac level), at least on paper, has a rather enormous magnetic field strength. The HDDL is also highly mobile, unlike the iron oxides - which is important in the context of superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism. There can be a rapid self-oscillation between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic alignments due to the mobility of the species. Therefore, the connection of dark matter to LENR and also to magnetic anomalies - can be tentatively defined as a DDL hydrogen connection (with an IP of ~3.7 keV and an orbital near 100 fm) - and this can serve to explain thermo-magnetic anomalies in two disparate systems. But the big surprise is that the thermal anomalies can be exothermic or endothermic (or absent) depending on circumstances. Endothermic anomalies are more interesting in a way since they are easier to document reliably. Thermal endotherm could be related to motional field-lines and thereby to direct conversion of that motion into electricity - and thermal endotherm has been documented. This does not violate CoE since thermal loss is balanced by electrical gain. Jones From: David Roberson The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior. The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady field has a free pass. It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. Dave Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device - which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt transformer! Go figure. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics yelling fraud. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
There are only experts who understand what they are doing I would have more confidence if they could get the weather right more often, which includes temperature and precipitation http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/long-term-weather-forecasts-are-a-long-way-from-accurate/2013/04/15/1f9a2ac8-a05b-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics yelling fraud. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:global warming?
Fraud is too strong a word. Last I heard, there was controversy about including temps from the 1930's ( which were unusually high). Some people would discard them as an outlier, others would include them entirely. I can understand both opinions.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
ehh, no, that one is fair. Some guys got caught fudging numbers. it happens, sadly. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics yelling fraud. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
here's 2 reports to chew on. good luck digesting them. it doesn't even reach back to the the fraudulent emails from ipcc yet. Dishonest global warming reports are good, as long as they promote certain agenda, paper says http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/ By Neilio http://www.globalclimatescam.com/author/neilio/ on July 12, 2014 in Bad Policy http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/bad-policy/, ClimateGate http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/climategate/, Corruption http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/corruption/, Extremists http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/extremists/, Fascism http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/fascism/, IPCC http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ipcc/, Junk Science http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/junk-science/, Science http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/science/, World Governance http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/world-governance/ by: J. D. Heyes. (NaturalNews) According to a pair of economists who have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about climate change in order to advance an extremist environmental agenda is a great idea.As reported by Breitbart News, the authors — Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao […] Continue Reading http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/ 57 http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/#comments [image: James Delingpole] http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/05/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/ Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’ http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/05/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/ By Dan McGrath http://www.globalclimatescam.com/author/dan-mcgrath/ on May 8, 2014 in Climate History http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/climate-history/, Failed predictions http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/failed-predictions/, IPCC http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ipcc/, Michael Mann http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/michael-mann/, Mythical Consensus http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/ By James Delingpole – One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp. Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the […] On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics yelling fraud. - Jed
[Vo]:BEC produced by magnetism
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-9733200200024script=sci_arttext * Conclusions * We conclude that Bose-Einstein condensation of charged particles in a strong magnetic field is possible and leads to several new and interesting phenomena, as the occurrence of phase transition in presence of an external magnetic field, without a critical temperature. For low field intensity we have usual condensation, and for very strong fields, condensation is manifest again. The condensate in the strong magnetic field suggests the existence of superconductivity in extremely strong magnetic fields and the existence of a ferromagnetic-superconductive phase. This has interest in condensed matter physics. In astrophysics and cosmology we have also interesting consequences. It gives support to the conjectured existence of superfluid and superconductive phases in neutron stars [25]. It suggests also that at the electroweak phase transition, extremely strong magnetic fields may arise as a consequence of condensation and self-magnetization effects of the medium.
Re: [Vo]:BEC produced by magnetism
That is a good paper. I think we have BECs in our atmosphere along powerful cold fronts and in the eyewalls of hurricanes where all the electromagnetic effects come from as the strings of vacuum decay On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-9733200200024script=sci_arttext * Conclusions * We conclude that Bose-Einstein condensation of charged particles in a strong magnetic field is possible and leads to several new and interesting phenomena, as the occurrence of phase transition in presence of an external magnetic field, without a critical temperature. For low field intensity we have usual condensation, and for very strong fields, condensation is manifest again. The condensate in the strong magnetic field suggests the existence of superconductivity in extremely strong magnetic fields and the existence of a ferromagnetic-superconductive phase. This has interest in condensed matter physics. In astrophysics and cosmology we have also interesting consequences. It gives support to the conjectured existence of superfluid and superconductive phases in neutron stars [25]. It suggests also that at the electroweak phase transition, extremely strong magnetic fields may arise as a consequence of condensation and self-magnetization effects of the medium.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Ha ha. Deniers of global warming are so delusional. http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/05/22/lomborg-hypes-already-debunked-bengtsson-story-in-new-forbes-column/ On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: here's 2 reports to chew on. good luck digesting them. it doesn't even reach back to the the fraudulent emails from ipcc yet. Dishonest global warming reports are good, as long as they promote certain agenda, paper says http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/ By Neilio http://www.globalclimatescam.com/author/neilio/ on July 12, 2014 in Bad Policy http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/bad-policy/, ClimateGate http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/climategate/, Corruption http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/corruption/, Extremists http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/extremists/, Fascism http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/fascism/, IPCC http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ipcc/, Junk Science http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/junk-science/, Science http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/science/, World Governance http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/world-governance/ by: J. D. Heyes. (NaturalNews) According to a pair of economists who have recently published a peer-reviewed paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, lying about climate change in order to advance an extremist environmental agenda is a great idea.As reported by Breitbart News, the authors — Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao […] Continue Reading http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/ 57 http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/07/dishonest-global-warming-reports-are-good-as-long-as-they-promote-certain-agenda-paper-says/#comments [image: James Delingpole] http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/05/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/ Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’ http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/05/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/ By Dan McGrath http://www.globalclimatescam.com/author/dan-mcgrath/ on May 8, 2014 in Climate History http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/climate-history/, Failed predictions http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/failed-predictions/, IPCC http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ipcc/, Michael Mann http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/michael-mann/, Mythical Consensus http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/ By James Delingpole – One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp. Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the […] On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If it's all about science and scholarship then why did the IPCC get caught fraudulently changing the data when it showed a cooling trend? That is nonsense. It resembles assertions that cold fusion researchers committed fraud. There is no fraud in global warming or cold fusion. There are only experts who understand what they are doing, and ignorant critics yelling fraud. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: There are only experts who understand what they are doing I would have more confidence if they could get the weather right more often, which includes temperature and precipitation That is a completely separate discipline, based on different data and principles. What you are demanding is very closely comparable to saying that a life insurance actuarial department should be able to tell you exactly how long you will live. Yes, both medicine and actuarial tables are based on deep knowledge of physiology, disease, the effects of environment and so on, but only a doctor can make a prediction for a specific person (analogous to a weather report), and only an actuarial expert can predict how long a group of people is likely to live on average (analogous to long term global climate predictions). Actuarial experts do their job well enough to keep life insurance companies highly profitable, so obviously they know what they are doing, even though they could not do it for one individual. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Bullsht On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: There are only experts who understand what they are doing I would have more confidence if they could get the weather right more often, which includes temperature and precipitation That is a completely separate discipline, based on different data and principles. What you are demanding is very closely comparable to saying that a life insurance actuarial department should be able to tell you exactly how long you will live. Yes, both medicine and actuarial tables are based on deep knowledge of physiology, disease, the effects of environment and so on, but only a doctor can make a prediction for a specific person (analogous to a weather report), and only an actuarial expert can predict how long a group of people is likely to live on average (analogous to long term global climate predictions). Actuarial experts do their job well enough to keep life insurance companies highly profitable, so obviously they know what they are doing, even though they could not do it for one individual. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: here's 2 reports to chew on. good luck digesting them. it doesn't even reach back to the the fraudulent emails from ipcc yet. I can serve up thousands of similar reports on cold fusion, from newspapers, universities, national labs, Wikipedia and a hundred other institutions. All of them are wrong. The authors, in every case, know nothing about this subject, and every assertion they make is either a mistake or a lie. By James Delingpole – One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp. I know several cold fusion researchers who gave up and denounced the whole file. I know several today who say that everyone else in the field is wrong, and that Rossi and many others are frauds. This proves only that cold fusion researchers are primates like everyone else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Bullsht The comparison between weather forecasting and long term climate change is not bullshit at all. It has been made by many experts. There are many other scientific fields with similar limitations, and also fields such as history, psychology, social science research, some areas of engineering and physics, and much else in which similar statistical proof is available but it does not work in a more granular analyses, or on a shorter timescale. This is common knowledge. You can learn about it in detail. You should not call this concept bullshit if you have not studied it. Frankly, you are out of line in this forum publishing such an ignorant dismissal. To be a little more specific, do you have the notion that an insurance company can tell you the year and month when you will die? That would be magic. Unless you happen to have a serious, terminal disease, no one can tell you that. But any insurance company can sell you a policy, and they can be sure that in the aggregate, their policies will make money, barring some major disaster such as 1918 avian influenza. I would also point out that short term weather forecasts are incredibly accurate these days, and the error ranges are well understood by forecasters. Everyone knows you can predict the weather in Georgia, but not in southern Pennsylvania. (Or, for Pennsylvania, you can say: there will be rain, sunshine, clouds and bright sun repeated at random times during the day, which is a sort of forecast, after all.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
They can't decide where the heat is going It's the Pacific.no Wait, It's the Atlantic They sure as hell can't predict the next ice age either. Or the next CME, or most of the asteroids that are out there http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/ I'll wait until physicists find the missing 95% of the universe's energy before I believe a word they say. Way too much energy pops out of our atmosphere than weather dudes can explain. They do not know what triggers lightning, haboobs, sprites. tornadoes, derichos, etc, etc...six months of cold winter, etc.. I agree increased CO2 can add some energy to the atmosphere, but that is about it. And that does not have anything to do with insurance. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: here's 2 reports to chew on. good luck digesting them. it doesn't even reach back to the the fraudulent emails from ipcc yet. I can serve up thousands of similar reports on cold fusion, from newspapers, universities, national labs, Wikipedia and a hundred other institutions. All of them are wrong. The authors, in every case, know nothing about this subject, and every assertion they make is either a mistake or a lie. By James Delingpole – One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp. I know several cold fusion researchers who gave up and denounced the whole file. I know several today who say that everyone else in the field is wrong, and that Rossi and many others are frauds. This proves only that cold fusion researchers are primates like everyone else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers. I did not find a copy of ... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the ... I and ... II papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time. However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Ferrites encompass a large body of magnetic materials. Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. However, if a permanent magnet is used as a transformer core, I am not sure what the result would be. It would certainly be nonlinear. In a passive device reciprocity is not guaranteed if a DC magnetic field is present. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here: http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from the surface. This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~ 140 MeV per muon worth). My working assumption is that they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory. What we are after is negitive mesons. Just like positron and electon pairs, the production of mesons from the vacume is produced by a magnetic field somewhere under 10^^16 tesla. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~ 140 MeV per muon worth). My working assumption is that they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
If you put your name on a paper and present it at a conference before your piers making such are extraordinary claim, would you not verify the data? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources. If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
And what would cause a change in these? Two things, increased alignment and/or am increase in spin momentum. Where might a greater spin momentum originate? Spin transfer? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 11:01 PM On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Bob, Thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately for elucidating the basis of LENR, if Va’vra is correct, then 511 keV is not going to solve any open questions. In fact, this spectrum has been specifically looked for and not seen. Jones From: Bob Higgins After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers. I did not find a copy of ... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the ... I and ... II papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time. However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
From: Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
How does the pin move if not confined by the tube? Does it move from the center region and stick to another spot? Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 12:29 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection-- From:Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferritemagnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and theplastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able tolevitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showingthat the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is ironand will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin willtouch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the typeof conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highestconcentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet,not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
How is the ferrite conditioned? Is it magnetized? Have you reproduced this effect? What happens to the hat pin when there is no tube? Soft iron needles easily become magnetized. What is seen in the photo could easily be reproduced with a ferrite magnet slab and an [inadvertently] magnetized pin. Of course, what you described with the levitation happening when the pin is inverted 180 degrees doesn't make sense with that simple explanation - I am asking if you personally verified that the ferrite slab was not permanently magnetized and that flipping the pin still caused it to levitate. Bob Sent with AquaMail for Android http://www.aqua-mail.com On August 21, 2014 10:29:27 PM Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
I can serve up thousands of similar reports on cold fusion, ***And you do. You serve up factual reports on cold fusion. And there are thousands of factual reports on global warming. Some conclude there's manmade warming, others conclude it's caused by the sun. Imagine that: the sun warms up planets, like ours.There's a distinct lack of evidence for something that is supposed to be such a friggin slam-dunk. When it is a slam-dunk, there's no need for fraud. This proves only that cold fusion researchers are primates like everyone else. ***And so are climate researchers. On both sides. I've seen reports that strongly correlate global warming with solar activity. What a huge DUHH factor. Trying to overcome the obvious and claim that such a thing is wrong, that there's some ton of evidence that says mankind causes global warming... well, such a thing has a higher bar of proof now that the IPCC was caught in an outright series of lies trying to make the case for global warming. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: here's 2 reports to chew on. good luck digesting them. it doesn't even reach back to the the fraudulent emails from ipcc yet. I can serve up thousands of similar reports on cold fusion, from newspapers, universities, national labs, Wikipedia and a hundred other institutions. All of them are wrong. The authors, in every case, know nothing about this subject, and every assertion they make is either a mistake or a lie. By James Delingpole – One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp. I know several cold fusion researchers who gave up and denounced the whole file. I know several today who say that everyone else in the field is wrong, and that Rossi and many others are frauds. This proves only that cold fusion researchers are primates like everyone else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It does mention some interesting points, however: - It is known that cosmic space objects called magnetars or neutron stars possess magnetic field in their cores equal to ∼ 1 MeV. [sic] - The values of magnetic fields in non-central heavy-ion collisions can reach up to ... ~ 290 MeV^2 Another paper indicates that in the cores of neutron stars [2], where the magnetic field is ~ 10^15 Tesla, ⍴- mesons *might* condense (the ⍴ meson is only slightly heavier than the π- meson, which is what we need for muons). We have a number of degrees of freedom to pin down to get any closer to our meson condensation: - What is the strength of the local magnetic field in a small volume in DGT's reactor? Is it in the twilight zone? Is it actually pretty small? - What is the effect of an extreme magnetic field on the condensation of π mesons? Does it enhance it? Does it inhibit it? I get the sense it could go either way. - How does the environment in a small volume in DGT's reactor compare to that in the core of a neutron star? Is it as extreme? Is it perhaps less extreme? I'm going to guess that we don't even have a prima facie case to become interested in the possibility of meson condensation at this point. Eric [1] http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf (see p. 3). [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0139.pdf (see the second half of p. 4).
Re: [Vo]:BEC produced by magnetism
Good paper. BECs and magnetism, hopefully nanomagnetism. . It gives support to the conjectured existence of superfluid and superconductive phases in neutron stars... what about condensed matter metal hydrides... giving rise to LENR? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: That is a good paper. I think we have BECs in our atmosphere along powerful cold fronts and in the eyewalls of hurricanes where all the electromagnetic effects come from as the strings of vacuum decay On Thursday, August 21, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-9733200200024script=sci_arttext * Conclusions * We conclude that Bose-Einstein condensation of charged particles in a strong magnetic field is possible and leads to several new and interesting phenomena, as the occurrence of phase transition in presence of an external magnetic field, without a critical temperature. For low field intensity we have usual condensation, and for very strong fields, condensation is manifest again. The condensate in the strong magnetic field suggests the existence of superconductivity in extremely strong magnetic fields and the existence of a ferromagnetic-superconductive phase. This has interest in condensed matter physics. In astrophysics and cosmology we have also interesting consequences. It gives support to the conjectured existence of superfluid and superconductive phases in neutron stars [25]. It suggests also that at the electroweak phase transition, extremely strong magnetic fields may arise as a consequence of condensation and self-magnetization effects of the medium.
