Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Ron Kita]

Ahhhthe famous Edison light bulb scam: Light cannot  be created without
something being burned!   Grins, Ron Kita, Chiralex

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Hmm permalink didn't work, but here it is:
>
> Alain Coetmeur 4 hours ago
>
> EmDrive phenomenon is still uncertain, and may well be an unimagined
> artifact. Unimagined because until now, no artifact was able toe explain
> the result, and EmDrive phenomenon was replicated.
>
> Ethan Siegel, as usual give priority to theory facing evidences.
>
> On E-cat I can, only laugh at his misinformation. The same way, he reject
> evidences only from theory, despite a much more serious list of
> experimental evidences, he reject not only E-cat but also LENR aka cold
> fusion.
>
> E-cat reality, I concede, is mostly supported by business evidence, like
> Tom darden commitment, 50M$ investment by Woodford fund, Fortune article
> interviewing Tom darden and even strange name-dropping of Time magazine
> with “Industrial Heat” Experimental evidence of E-cat are mostly loose, and
> the only serious experimental evidence, the calorimetry of Ferrara test,
> the melting in Ferrara, and Lugano test isotopic shift, are hidden by smoke
> screen of false informations and conspiracy theories. The bad job or Rossi
> until Ferrara, and then on the Swedish physicists prevented better evidence
> to be clear. Anyway, people doing, like Woodford fund, their due diligence
> can acquire solid evidence. Since Woodford fund is very famous in UK, many
> other actors are looking at it.
>
> However LENR, despite the pathological consensus, is beyond the reasonable
> doubt.
>
> There is hundreds of peer reviewed papers that are produced by many
> scientists, from various scientists in many countries, in many recognized
> organizations. The consensus denying LENr reality is no less than a
> groupthink, a collective denial.
>
> Lawrence Forsley just published on Academia.edu a document listing the
> best papers presenting, among others, the numerous replications of US Navy
> Spawar co-deposition LENR experiment. There is much more, and all is denied
> without any rational reason.
>
> This is why no less than Airbus Chief scientist is now supporting LENR
> startups (like LENR-Cities), and organizing LENr Workshop in Airbus resort
> (Toulouse).
>
> Instead of parroting theory justified denial, I would appreciate Forbes
> reports Woodford fund investment, Airbus Innovations movements, Tohoku
> University LENR lab newly created with MHI and CleanPlanet, Baishishan
> technology park welcoming Tom darden E-cat technology, and maybe more that
> some journalist present in LENRG-Oxborf, LENRG-Milan, LENRG-Neuchatel,
> should have reported.
>
> Ethan Siegel is very good in explaining theory, and showing how evidence
> match the theory.
>
> With evidence that don’t match the theory, I think he is clearly out of
> his domain of competence.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Brilliant smackdown:
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/4033-120-22
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> What's particularly arrogant is he says "respect scientists" but then
>>> he's denigrating all of the extremely well educated and talented scientists
>>> that actually believe in cold fusion.
>>>
>>> I think Ethan is having a nervous breakdown.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 It's just click bait.  Move on.



 On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda 
 wrote:

> The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
> theory.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/
>
> one day we will have to tell him what is science.
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

What's particularly arrogant is he says "respect scientists" but then he's
denigrating all of the extremely well educated and talented scientists that
actually believe in cold fusion.

I think Ethan is having a nervous breakdown.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> It's just click bait.  Move on.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>> The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
>> theory.
>>
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/
>>
>> one day we will have to tell him what is science.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Fw: Magnetic levitation experiments

[jjam...@gmail.com]

They were DC motor spikes at causing osclilations 50 Mhz at pickup coil.
H Ucar
-- Original message--From: jjamdix@gmail.comDate: Sun, Nov 8, 2015 
23:10To: vortex-L@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: Magnetic levitation experiments
Jones, I noticed high frequency transients on videos scope screens at the 
peaks of the traces. I think they are real and may they are electrical 
interference of dc motor (this can be ruled out because they could be present 
all all videos) or result of mechanical ultrasonic ringing of magnet or a 
related to behaviour of Nd magnets when they receive magnetic impulses. I will 
investigating it tomorrow. These transients can be clearly seen on video dated 
Nov. 7.
H Ucar
-- Original message--From: jjamdix@gmail.comDate: Sun, Nov 8, 2015 
00:54To: vortex-L@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject:Re: Magnetic levitation experiments



No,  it is directly attached to scope having 1 MOhm impededence. OTH, I am 
monitoring the current driving the motor. Sometimes current drops up 8% when 
floating magnet get stablely spinning on the air compared motor running stand 
alone. This not really expected while the extra signifant vibration caused by 
floating magnet interaction. This vibration would normally cause stress on 
rotor and would increase the friction. For example 63 mA to 57 mA at 25 V. 
H Ucar

Jones Beene Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:45:47 -0800With the pickup coil attached to a 
load - is there any indication of the ratio of P-out to P-in ?

-- Original message--From: jjamdix@gmail.comDate: Sat, Nov 7, 2015 
20:23To: vortex-l@eskimo.com;Cc: Subject: Re: Magnetic levitation experiments
I added new videos to my playlist.There are scope screens showing 1/2 and 
1/3 speed ratio between base magnet and floating magnet. 1/2 ratio corresponds 
to single cusped and 1/3 to two cusped epicycloid laser reflection patterns.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3KwdWTgl7fisd3h_tK1YLhFeuzkPATNt

H Ucar

[Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[jjam...@gmail.com]

I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron. Explosion is 
spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the content is completely 
blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of safety container. 
Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction that occurs but as the 
lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be focused that way.
Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently? H Ucar

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

It's just click bait.  Move on.



On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
> theory.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/
>
> one day we will have to tell him what is science.
>

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Brilliant smackdown:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/4033-120-22

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> What's particularly arrogant is he says "respect scientists" but then he's
> denigrating all of the extremely well educated and talented scientists that
> actually believe in cold fusion.
>
> I think Ethan is having a nervous breakdown.
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> It's just click bait.  Move on.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
>>> theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/
>>>
>>> one day we will have to tell him what is science.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Ron Kita]

Siegelwell.doubt that he even cares about this Oct Paper:
https://www.academia.edu/17964553/Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science_October_2015
Per Aspera...Ad Astra,
Ron..I would rather have my mind opened by the joy of discovery..than
closed by my beliefs
Siegel  mission was  a conclusion even before he began to write.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Ron Kita  wrote:

> Ahhhthe famous Edison light bulb scam: Light cannot  be created
> without something being burned!   Grins, Ron Kita, Chiralex
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm permalink didn't work, but here it is:
>>
>> Alain Coetmeur 4 hours ago
>>
>> EmDrive phenomenon is still uncertain, and may well be an unimagined
>> artifact. Unimagined because until now, no artifact was able toe explain
>> the result, and EmDrive phenomenon was replicated.
>>
>> Ethan Siegel, as usual give priority to theory facing evidences.
>>
>> On E-cat I can, only laugh at his misinformation. The same way, he reject
>> evidences only from theory, despite a much more serious list of
>> experimental evidences, he reject not only E-cat but also LENR aka cold
>> fusion.
>>
>> E-cat reality, I concede, is mostly supported by business evidence, like
>> Tom darden commitment, 50M$ investment by Woodford fund, Fortune article
>> interviewing Tom darden and even strange name-dropping of Time magazine
>> with “Industrial Heat” Experimental evidence of E-cat are mostly loose, and
>> the only serious experimental evidence, the calorimetry of Ferrara test,
>> the melting in Ferrara, and Lugano test isotopic shift, are hidden by smoke
>> screen of false informations and conspiracy theories. The bad job or Rossi
>> until Ferrara, and then on the Swedish physicists prevented better evidence
>> to be clear. Anyway, people doing, like Woodford fund, their due diligence
>> can acquire solid evidence. Since Woodford fund is very famous in UK, many
>> other actors are looking at it.
>>
>> However LENR, despite the pathological consensus, is beyond the
>> reasonable doubt.
>>
>> There is hundreds of peer reviewed papers that are produced by many
>> scientists, from various scientists in many countries, in many recognized
>> organizations. The consensus denying LENr reality is no less than a
>> groupthink, a collective denial.
>>
>> Lawrence Forsley just published on Academia.edu a document listing the
>> best papers presenting, among others, the numerous replications of US Navy
>> Spawar co-deposition LENR experiment. There is much more, and all is denied
>> without any rational reason.
>>
>> This is why no less than Airbus Chief scientist is now supporting LENR
>> startups (like LENR-Cities), and organizing LENr Workshop in Airbus resort
>> (Toulouse).
>>
>> Instead of parroting theory justified denial, I would appreciate Forbes
>> reports Woodford fund investment, Airbus Innovations movements, Tohoku
>> University LENR lab newly created with MHI and CleanPlanet, Baishishan
>> technology park welcoming Tom darden E-cat technology, and maybe more that
>> some journalist present in LENRG-Oxborf, LENRG-Milan, LENRG-Neuchatel,
>> should have reported.
>>
>> Ethan Siegel is very good in explaining theory, and showing how evidence
>> match the theory.
>>
>> With evidence that don’t match the theory, I think he is clearly out of
>> his domain of competence.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> Brilliant smackdown:
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/4033-120-22
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 What's particularly arrogant is he says "respect scientists" but then
 he's denigrating all of the extremely well educated and talented scientists
 that actually believe in cold fusion.

 I think Ethan is having a nervous breakdown.

 On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's just click bait.  Move on.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>> The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't
>> respect theory.
>>
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/
>>
>> one day we will have to tell him what is science.
>>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Hmm permalink didn't work, but here it is:

Alain Coetmeur 4 hours ago

EmDrive phenomenon is still uncertain, and may well be an unimagined
artifact. Unimagined because until now, no artifact was able toe explain
the result, and EmDrive phenomenon was replicated.

Ethan Siegel, as usual give priority to theory facing evidences.

On E-cat I can, only laugh at his misinformation. The same way, he reject
evidences only from theory, despite a much more serious list of
experimental evidences, he reject not only E-cat but also LENR aka cold
fusion.

E-cat reality, I concede, is mostly supported by business evidence, like
Tom darden commitment, 50M$ investment by Woodford fund, Fortune article
interviewing Tom darden and even strange name-dropping of Time magazine
with “Industrial Heat” Experimental evidence of E-cat are mostly loose, and
the only serious experimental evidence, the calorimetry of Ferrara test,
the melting in Ferrara, and Lugano test isotopic shift, are hidden by smoke
screen of false informations and conspiracy theories. The bad job or Rossi
until Ferrara, and then on the Swedish physicists prevented better evidence
to be clear. Anyway, people doing, like Woodford fund, their due diligence
can acquire solid evidence. Since Woodford fund is very famous in UK, many
other actors are looking at it.

However LENR, despite the pathological consensus, is beyond the reasonable
doubt.

There is hundreds of peer reviewed papers that are produced by many
scientists, from various scientists in many countries, in many recognized
organizations. The consensus denying LENr reality is no less than a
groupthink, a collective denial.

Lawrence Forsley just published on Academia.edu a document listing the best
papers presenting, among others, the numerous replications of US Navy
Spawar co-deposition LENR experiment. There is much more, and all is denied
without any rational reason.

This is why no less than Airbus Chief scientist is now supporting LENR
startups (like LENR-Cities), and organizing LENr Workshop in Airbus resort
(Toulouse).

Instead of parroting theory justified denial, I would appreciate Forbes
reports Woodford fund investment, Airbus Innovations movements, Tohoku
University LENR lab newly created with MHI and CleanPlanet, Baishishan
technology park welcoming Tom darden E-cat technology, and maybe more that
some journalist present in LENRG-Oxborf, LENRG-Milan, LENRG-Neuchatel,
should have reported.

Ethan Siegel is very good in explaining theory, and showing how evidence
match the theory.

With evidence that don’t match the theory, I think he is clearly out of his
domain of competence.


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Brilliant smackdown:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/4033-120-22
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> What's particularly arrogant is he says "respect scientists" but then
>> he's denigrating all of the extremely well educated and talented scientists
>> that actually believe in cold fusion.
>>
>> I think Ethan is having a nervous breakdown.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> It's just click bait.  Move on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Alain Sepeda 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
 theory.


 http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

 one day we will have to tell him what is science.

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[John Berry]

And then try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlyg_9m7tk

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:24 AM, John Berry  wrote:

> Perhaps because of this breakthrough?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:08 AM, jjam...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron.
>> Explosion is spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the
>> content is completely blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of
>> safety container. Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction
>> that occurs but as the lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be
>> focused that way.
>>
>>
>> Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently?
>>
>>
>>
>> H Ucar
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[John Berry]

Perhaps because of this breakthrough?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:08 AM, jjam...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> I exploded two button batteries by heating through soldering iron.
> Explosion is spectacular, maybe comparable to amno. When exploded the
> content is completely blow out and sticked as fine gray powder to suface of
> safety container. Soldering iron tip is also crooked. I dont the reaction
> that occurs but as the lithium appears prime element in LENR this can be
> focused that way.
>
>
> Why these tiny dead batteries explodes so violently?
>
>
>
> H Ucar
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[John Berry]

Eric, if that's your theory, it should probably account for all the metals
doing this though.

Under the right circumstances Aluminium, Iron (or thermite) all the
alkaline metals at the very minimum explode with water or ice in the right
circumstances.

Consider too water arc explosions, it is likely the anomalously energetic
explosions are a result of melting electrodes.

John

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>
> Perhaps because of this breakthrough?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
>>
>
> The narrator identifies the explosion that occurs as sodium is dropped in
> water as being due to a Coulomb explosion.  I was personally thinking of
> something different, perhaps related or perhaps not:
>
> e- + 22Na => e- + ν + 22Ne + 2843 keV
>
> Here we would have beta decay that is induced in a beta-unstable sodium
> isotope, so that it happens more quickly than it usually does.  Presumably
> this would be brought about by the change in electronic environment on the
> surface of the sodium mass as it is submerged.  As the beta-decay proceeds,
> high-energy electrons are ejected from the beta emitter into the
> surrounding water.  The colorful plasma that develops in some of the photos
> could be Cherenkov radiation.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Faraday to challenge Tesla

[Jones Beene]

There seems to be a notion among futurists, probably slightly incorrect, that 
“driverless” vehicle is the next-big-thing in automotive, and especially in the 
“alternative-taxi” segment. 

 

Perhaps we should could refine this into a more likely version, by saying 
“virtually driverless” or not quite computer controlled.

 

By “not quite” there is a likely scenario where there is both an intelligent 
control system in the car itself - but also a cadre of “remote drivers” in an 
office somewhere (preferably local, instead of India). And all interactions are 
recorded, of course.

 

Imagine an entry level office job of the future, requiring no college education 
– only communication skills… and not involving hamburgers … which is at the 
heart of this “OnStar-on-Steroids” proposal … where the employee sits behind a 
desk which has 8-10 flat screen monitors, each of which is connected to the 
intelligent control system of a corresponding driverless taxi or personal 
vehicle. 

 

Thus, when required, the customer can actually communicate with a real person, 
in real time, for a fraction of the cost of a human driver. Or when the vehicle 
makes an Amazon Prime delivery, or picks up the kids from school – there are 
human eyes watching over the situation. 

 

This could be a substantial improvement over the completely autonomous vehicle, 
where everything depends on software and there is nothing equivalent to 
personal responsibility. And it is a step forward from OnStar too – so no doubt 
this has not gone unnoticed in Detroit.

 

 



The fact that there is a China connection to the Faraday/Apple automotive 
venture should come as no surprise. It is the obvious partial answer to the 
“how and why” question, as explained here:

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542111/how-might-apple-manufacture-a-car/

 

In short, they use the iphone business model – design the product here, add 
features (or an entirely new concept) that the competition lacks, build it 
Asia, and sell the sizzle.

 

The surprise is that they apparently didn’t steal any talent from Uber/Goggle, 
since the car itself will (eventually) be driverless - maybe not the first 
generation, but eventually. The second surprise is that the market they are 
going for in not the family car per se, but the 2nd car of a two-car family. 
Make that: the market is the elimination of the second car.

 

In short, the target market is for that percentage of mostly urban consumers 
who do not care to own a vehicle, if it involves parking it on the street - but 
will contract with Faraday for (a portion of) their transportation needs ala 
Uber, but with no driver – and a net savings over actual ownership. This means 
instant guaranteed access to a ride, and at a cost much less than Uber is now.  
Many consumers will still have one car, but if they live in a big city – no 
car. In San Francisco, New York, and a growing number of other locales, the 
former car owner can convert the former garage into a studio apartment and rent 
it for $3000/mo. That is not a joke.

 

Re: [Vo]:Faraday to challenge Tesla

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> By “not quite” there is a likely scenario where there is both an
> intelligent control system in the car itself - but also a cadre of “remote
> drivers” in an office somewhere (preferably local, instead of India). And
> all interactions are recorded, of course.
>

I doubt it. That sounds like the worst of both technologies. The safety
record measured in accidents per passenger mile of driverless cars is
already far better than human-driven cars. It will only improve. Putting a
person in charge of a driverless car, or even letting a person touch the
controls, is asking for trouble. It will increase the number of accidents.

I guess it might be a good idea for delivery vehicles, but a better idea is
to make delivery vehicles the size of picnic baskets and have them go no
faster than 2 miles an hour. Like this:

https://thestack.com/iot/2015/11/03/self-driving-delivery-robots-starship-skype-london-in-2016/

Pilots have long been saying that future airplanes will be equipped with
one man and one dog. The man's job will be to feed the dog. The dog's job
will be to bite the man if he touches the controls.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
> theory.
>

Ethan Siegel's argument in this instance is essentially an argument from
authority -- the authorities are right, so the cold fusion people must be
wrong.  His general approach is actually a good one when dealing with a
brash young kid who is just learning about physics: do you really think you
know what people who have studied physics for years know to be different?
But the usefulness of the approach is pretty limited when you try to apply
it to CF.  (Although CF people on the whole could definitely benefit from a
better knowledge of physics!)

Siegel has been lumping cold fusion into the same category as perpetual
motion machines for years.  Here is an earlier attempt to get people to
come to their senses, which used arguments going back to physics rather
than an argument from authority:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/05/the-nuclear-physics-of-why-we/

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about opinion pieces like the one that was
recently published in Forbes Science.  Even nontechnical people will see
that he's adopting a paternalistic attitude, which is, essentially, "trust
us, we know what we're doing."  Eventually he will be embarrassed.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Faraday to challenge Tesla

[Jones Beene]

The fact that there is a China connection to the Faraday/Apple automotive 
venture should come as no surprise. It is the obvious partial answer to the 
“how and why” question, as explained here:

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542111/how-might-apple-manufacture-a-car/

 

In short, they use the iphone business model – design the product here, add 
features (or an entirely new concept) that the competition lacks, build it 
Asia, and sell the sizzle.

 

The surprise is that they apparently didn’t steal any talent from Uber/Goggle, 
since the car itself will (eventually) be driverless - maybe not the first 
generation, but eventually. The second surprise is that the market they are 
going for in not the family car per se, but the 2nd car of a two-car family. 
Make that: the market is the elimination of the second car.

 

In short, the target market is for that percentage of mostly urban consumers 
who do not care to own a vehicle, if it involves parking it on the street - but 
will contract with Faraday for (a portion of) their transportation needs ala 
Uber, but with no driver – and a net savings over actual ownership. This means 
instant guaranteed access to a ride, and at a cost much less than Uber is now.  
Many consumers will still have one car, but if they live in a big city – no 
car. In San Francisco, New York, and a growing number of other locales, the 
former car owner can convert the former garage into a studio apartment and rent 
it for $3000/mo. That is not a joke.

 

From: Blaze Spinnaker 

 

i like the team:

*   Nick Sampson, Senior Vice President – Former Director of Vehicle & 
Chassis Engineering, Tesla Motors
*   Dag Reckhorn, Vice President of Global Manufacturing – Former Director 
of Manufacturing, Tesla Model S
*   Alan Cherry, Vice President of Human Resources - Former Senior 
Director, Human Resources, Tesla Motors
*   Tom Wessner, Vice President of Supply Chain - Former Director of 
Purchasing, Tesla Motors
*   Richard Kim, Head of Design – Founding member of BMW i Design and Lead 
Designer, i3 and i8 concepts.

 

[Vo]:good LENR co-deposition news LENR/LENR+ info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/09-nov-2015-info-and-lenr-by-co.html

normal living Blog activity

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[John Berry]

Too bad, a beautiful theory and all that.

I wonder if Rossi style LENR is based on a sub-critical level of this same
effect?

Rossi does say there is an electrical output.

Look at the Thor's hammer video (so doable), if this has the current
claimed, current that outstrips a lightning strike by a long way, then
smashing this on the face of a strong magnet should create a powerful
magnetic pulse.

Very tempted to try that.

John

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, John Berry 
> wrote:
>
> Eric, if that's your theory, it should probably account for all the metals
>> doing this though.
>>
>> Under the right circumstances Aluminium, Iron (or thermite) all the
>> alkaline metals at the very minimum explode with water or ice in the right
>> circumstances.
>>
>> Consider too water arc explosions, it is likely the anomalously energetic
>> explosions are a result of melting electrodes.
>>
>
> These are all good points.  I'm optimistic that beta decay can be sped up,
> but I'm not at all sure that such a process is applicable in this
> particular type of reaction.
>
> In addition to Na, here are some additional beta decays that could be sped
> up for aluminum and three more alkaline metals:
>
> e- + 40K => e- + ν + 40Ar + 1504 keV
> e- + 26Al => e- + ν + 26Mg + 4004 keV
> e- + 87Rb => e- + ν + 87Sr + 282 keV
> e- + 137Cs => e- + ν + 137Ba + 1176 keV
> e- + 137Cs => 2·e- + 2·ν + 137La + 595 keV
> e- + 135Cs => e- + ν + 135Ba + 269 keV
>
> It does not seem that such a process can account for Li exploding, which
> has no isotope which will lend itself to beta decay of some kind.  So you
> are probably right that such a mechanism does not do a good job of
> explaining what is going on.  However, if the rate of beta decay is
> increased in certain environments, it might be triggered in reactions of
> these kinds when the explosion has begun through other means.
>
> Thermite has aluminum in it, so the above reaction for aluminum could
> apply.  That makes lithium the party crasher.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Thermite has aluminum in it, so the above reaction for aluminum could
> apply.  That makes lithium the party crasher.
>

It did occur to me, however, that lithium does not violently explode in
water in the same way that the others do.  It just kind of sets on fire and
burns.  This could be what the normal oxidation looks like without a beta
decay component that the others might have.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, John Berry  wrote:

Eric, if that's your theory, it should probably account for all the metals
> doing this though.
>
> Under the right circumstances Aluminium, Iron (or thermite) all the
> alkaline metals at the very minimum explode with water or ice in the right
> circumstances.
>
> Consider too water arc explosions, it is likely the anomalously energetic
> explosions are a result of melting electrodes.
>

These are all good points.  I'm optimistic that beta decay can be sped up,
but I'm not at all sure that such a process is applicable in this
particular type of reaction.

In addition to Na, here are some additional beta decays that could be sped
up for aluminum and three more alkaline metals:

e- + 40K => e- + ν + 40Ar + 1504 keV
e- + 26Al => e- + ν + 26Mg + 4004 keV
e- + 87Rb => e- + ν + 87Sr + 282 keV
e- + 137Cs => e- + ν + 137Ba + 1176 keV
e- + 137Cs => 2·e- + 2·ν + 137La + 595 keV
e- + 135Cs => e- + ν + 135Ba + 269 keV

It does not seem that such a process can account for Li exploding, which
has no isotope which will lend itself to beta decay of some kind.  So you
are probably right that such a mechanism does not do a good job of
explaining what is going on.  However, if the rate of beta decay is
increased in certain environments, it might be triggered in reactions of
these kinds when the explosion has begun through other means.

Thermite has aluminum in it, so the above reaction for aluminum could
apply.  That makes lithium the party crasher.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:35 AM, John Berry  wrote:

I wonder if Rossi style LENR is based on a sub-critical level of this same
> effect?
>

I do not think beta decay could account for much of what was seen in the
Lugano test.  It could not explain the shift in the ratio of 6Li to 7Li,
for example.  It might account for the heat.  I am currently exploring the
possibility that alpha decay and alpha capture explain the isotope shifts
(which may or may not be the primary source of heat).

Eric

[Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

[Jones Beene]

This is from the journal Nature in 1999 – and it reads like “déjà vu all
over again”… since it was done with a table top laser and clusters of
deuterium - but is hot fusion on a small scale – ICF … and way ahead of its
time … since it is also very much like Holmlid’s claims, with one notable
difference …

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6727/abs/398489a0.html

… one of the authors, Ken Wharton was present at the Ólafsson SRI colloquium
and indicated that he had not been successful making the dense deuterium,
but it is really only that one “detail” which ties everything together into
a game changer technology.

Which is to say that LENR and ICF hot fusion are so very close to becoming a
hybrid, and now we see that they have been close since 1999 – such that a
hybrid with LENR, using even lower energy - will be readily accepted by the
mainstream (after all this is Nature) … if and when … the dense deuterium
for ICF targets is replicated.

Everything else is in place… essentially. 

It is mind boggling, in a way that the wording of the 1999 Letter is so
similar…

Re: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

[Bob Cook]

Check this out - Nature 1999It seems the 1999 experimenters thought that 
neutrons were the cause or result of the reaction that was observed. 

>>>“We achieve an efficiency of about 105 fusion neutrons per joule of incident 
>>>laser energy, which approaches the efficiency of large-scale laser-driven 
>>>fusion experiments. Our results should facilitate a range of fusion 
>>>experiments using small-scale lasers, and may ultimately lead to the 
>>>development of a table-top neutron source, which could potentially find wide 
>>>application in materials studies.”<<<

Neutrons were not reported in the case in the Holmlid reaction as far as I 
know.  The situation seems to be different.

It may be that the 1999 experimenters only assumed neutrons were present.  

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

This is from the journal Nature in 1999 – and it reads like “déjà vu all over 
again”… since it was done with a table top laser and clusters of deuterium - 
but is hot fusion on a small scale – ICF … and way ahead of its time … since it 
is also very much like Holmlid’s claims, with one notable difference …

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6727/abs/398489a0.html

… one of the authors, Ken Wharton was present at the Ólafsson SRI colloquium 
and indicated that he had not been successful making the dense deuterium, but 
it is really only that one “detail” which ties everything together into a game 
changer technology.

Which is to say that LENR and ICF hot fusion are so very close to becoming a 
hybrid, and now we see that they have been close since 1999 – such that a 
hybrid with LENR, using even lower energy - will be readily accepted by the 
mainstream (after all this is Nature) … if and when … the dense deuterium for 
ICF targets is replicated.

Everything else is in place… essentially. 

It is mind boggling, in a way that the wording of the 1999 Letter is so similar…

RE: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

[Jones Beene]

Right, Bob. It looks like the dense deuterium essentially permits a 
comparatively slow laser pulse to break up nucleons instead of fusing them - 
which is ironic. (in more ways than one).

 

More from less. 

 

The bad news is that it hasn’t been duplicated by a most interested party who 
has long experience doing similar things. Another flash from the past: 
“Unleashing the Quark within: LENR, Klein-Gordon Equation, and Elementary 
Particle Physics” This was floating around after Arata from the University of 
New Mexico and turned up today, in thinking about quark manipulation as being 
easier to pull off than fusion….

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

It seems the 1999 experimenters thought that neutrons were the cause or result 
of the reaction that was observed. 

 

>>>“We achieve an efficiency of about 105 fusion neutrons per joule of incident 
>>>laser energy, which approaches the efficiency of large-scale laser-driven 
>>>fusion experiments. Our results should facilitate a range of fusion 
>>>experiments using small-scale lasers, and may ultimately lead to the 
>>>development of a table-top neutron source, which could potentially find wide 
>>>application in materials studies.”<<<

 

Neutrons were not reported in the case in the Holmlid reaction as far as I 
know.  The situation seems to be different.

 

It may be that the 1999 experimenters only assumed neutrons were present.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 7:07 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Check this out - Nature 1999

 

This is from the journal Nature in 1999 – and it reads like “déjà vu all over 
again”… since it was done with a table top laser and clusters of deuterium - 
but is hot fusion on a small scale – ICF … and way ahead of its time … since it 
is also very much like Holmlid’s claims, with one notable difference …

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6727/abs/398489a0.html

… one of the authors, Ken Wharton was present at the Ólafsson SRI colloquium 
and indicated that he had not been successful making the dense deuterium, but 
it is really only that one “detail” which ties everything together into a game 
changer technology.

Which is to say that LENR and ICF hot fusion are so very close to becoming a 
hybrid, and now we see that they have been close since 1999 – such that a 
hybrid with LENR, using even lower energy - will be readily accepted by the 
mainstream (after all this is Nature) … if and when … the dense deuterium for 
ICF targets is replicated.

Everything else is in place… essentially. 

It is mind boggling, in a way that the wording of the 1999 Letter is so similar…

Re: [Vo]:Old disposible button lithium batteries spectacularly explodes

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Berry  wrote:

Perhaps because of this breakthrough?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmlAYnFF_s8
>

The narrator identifies the explosion that occurs as sodium is dropped in
water as being due to a Coulomb explosion.  I was personally thinking of
something different, perhaps related or perhaps not:

e- + 22Na => e- + ν + 22Ne + 2843 keV

Here we would have beta decay that is induced in a beta-unstable sodium
isotope, so that it happens more quickly than it usually does.  Presumably
this would be brought about by the change in electronic environment on the
surface of the sodium mass as it is submerged.  As the beta-decay proceeds,
high-energy electrons are ejected from the beta emitter into the
surrounding water.  The colorful plasma that develops in some of the photos
could be Cherenkov radiation.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:ADGEX Flashlight Creators Announce USB PowerBank

[Esa Ruoho]

Hi Vort-list:

It seems that the Adgex Energy TACHYON product might not be as expensive as
I expected it to be (what with Steorn charging 1200€ for a USB-self-charger
that-never-runs-out, I was expecting TACHYON to be 500-1000-5000$ or more).
Fingers crossed that the TACHYON will come out soon.


On 12 October 2015 at 10:40, esa ruoho  wrote:

> Craig & list
>
> The thing that caught my interest about ADGEX's Powerbank is that if you =
> order an ADGEX ELFE for $99, you get 20% off the full price of their usb =
> powerbank.
>
> ...That, and the mere possibility of maybe,, just maybe, being able to =
> finally charge my MacBookPro from (supposed) free energy.
>
> Tachyon? It even sounds cool! ;)
> ---
> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com | http://lackluster.org |
> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com | iPhone: +358403703659
>
>


-- 

---
http://twitter.com/esaruoho
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com

[Vo]:Ethan Siegel in Forbes: bashing E-cat, LENr and EmDrive ins a love declaration to theory

[Alain Sepeda]

The usual ranting of Ethan Siegel against anomalies that don't respect
theory.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/08/the-em-drive-nasas-impossible-engine-highlights-our-greatest-failing/

one day we will have to tell him what is science.