Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[mixent]

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:54:07 +:
Hi,

There is another point here too. IIRC a mass spec works by ionizing a particle
then measuring the mass to charge ratio. A deep level D2* molecule has an
ionization potential in the tens of kV, so is unlikely to be detected by a mass
spec. at all.

>
>Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.
>
>
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries
>
>In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>>illumination.
>>
>>
>>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
>[snip]
>The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
>is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
>the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
>sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>local asymmetry = temporary success
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Re: Has the theory of relativity ever been applied to electromagnetic fields?

[Harvey Norris]

Question: When does the message arrive before the sending of it, viewed from 
the past history?  Or maybe I got that methodology wrong but the way things 
here on yahoo sometimes work is they omit the sending message to recipients, 
but then they allow the seemingly censored info to go through as a reply.  As 
they say out west, this aint my first rodeo so have learned from being thrown 
off the horse before. Here is the rest of the story after it was told once; 
then blocked: then reissued as a reply as time frames will indicate. Here is my 
commentary as to what is to come...I am now convinced that this localized time 
distortion effect should be tested by a symmetrical voltage transformation 
whereby no transformation differences exist between input and output. What this 
means is that if we operate it in one direction it delivers a voltage rise 
between input and output, but if we operate it in the reverse direction it does 
the same thing! On a normal transformation delivered from common ferromagnetic 
transformer what goes up goes back down in the same ratio when the instrument 
is reversed. Here the air core transformer I am investigating does NOT do this 
at all! So I am one component away from doing those tests for a symmetrical 
transformation.AS Paul Harvey should  say; the rest of this message is 
contained in the original message which was never initially sent out to begin 
withPioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 4:55 PM, Harvey Norris  
wrote:
 

  Harvey D Norris's answer to Has the theory of relativity ever been applied to 
electromagnetic fields? - Quora
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Harvey D Norris's answer to Has the theory of relativity ever been appl...
   |   |

  |

  |

 
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

   

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.


From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Has the theory of relativity ever been applied to electromagnetic fields?

[Harvey Norris]

 Harvey D Norris's answer to Has the theory of relativity ever been applied to 
electromagnetic fields? - Quora
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Harvey D Norris's answer to Has the theory of relativity ever been appl...
   |   |

  |

  |

 
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[mixent]

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Nigel Dyer]

I agree about Pollack, indeed I have him to blame for my interest in 
LENR. I agree that there may well be a closer link between LENR and 
Jerry's exclusion zone ideas.  Indeed, that lies behind the neutrino 
ideas that I posted here a month or so ago.


Nigel


On 30/01/2018 17:04, Brian Ahern wrote:


Pollack is amazing.His work is uncomfortable for the old guard to 
incorporate into their world view. CF/LANR should face his 
observations since they are both looking at effects in liquid water at 
low electric fields.

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Brian Ahern]

Pollack is amazing.His work is uncomfortable for the old guard to incorporate 
into their world view. CF/LANR should face his observations since they are both 
looking at effects in liquid water at low electric fields.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


I tend to think that his ideas on this specific aspect, the formation of 
'exclusion zones' at the surfaces of blood vessels may also be an important 
factor, and that the two effects may well work in tandem.

On 30/01/2018 12:27, Brian Ahern wrote:

see gerald pollack for the flow issue.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are observed on 
the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion that it was 
completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano drumming.  I wondered 
if the surface structure of red blood cells (with its spectrin networks) have 
evolved to make use of this to help them move through blood vessels, but never 
followed it up

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

The forces are different by 10*36, so comparisons are impossible to measure.



From: John Berry 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational 
>mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to 
>ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:

Bob,



There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills 
hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category.



As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man 
for this)



Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational 
force



The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the 
Pentagon ignoredthemt?



And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even 
get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse 
gyrotron?



Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit 
and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize 
them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a 
creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas 
into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is 
great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory 
independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.



The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, 
he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why 
it failed.



Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work 
into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have 
been the first …









From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com


For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:



http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Nigel Dyer]

I tend to think that his ideas on this specific aspect, the formation of 
'exclusion zones' at the surfaces of blood vessels may also be an 
important factor, and that the two effects may well work in tandem.



On 30/01/2018 12:27, Brian Ahern wrote:


see gerald pollack for the flow issue.




*From:* Nigel Dyer 
*Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that 
could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are 
observed on the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion 
that it was completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano 
drumming.  I wondered if the surface structure of red blood cells 
(with its spectrin networks) have evolved to make use of this to help 
them move through blood vessels, but never followed it up


Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Brian Ahern]

see gerald pollack for the flow issue.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are observed on 
the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion that it was 
completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano drumming.  I wondered 
if the surface structure of red blood cells (with its spectrin networks) have 
evolved to make use of this to help them move through blood vessels, but never 
followed it up

Nigel

On 26/11/2017 14:58, JonesBeene wrote:





In reply to  Jack Cole's message:



>I found a link to the full paper.  Maybe that will help us understand more.

>

>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06301.pdf

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background illumination.


The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.

The excess heat could arise as D2* without any gamma rays.  Thermacore Corp got 
50 watts of excess power for H2O electrolysis with nickel in 1996. I was 
involved with Thermacore at that time and I  found their results to be 
credible, but it would not scale up.

How can this be reconciled with CF?


From: melmil...@juno.com 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 7:02 PM
To: m...@theworld.com
Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Mitchell,
Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian 
Ahern.  I would like to add the following:

1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments showing the correlation of  
excess heat and helium-4 production. Dental film placed close to the cell 
showed fogging in both experiments, and these results were shown in the 
publication.  Many later experiments not producing any excess heat gave no 
fogging of  such dental films.  Later experiments showed high G-M radiation 
counts for some Pd/D experiments.
2. The 1990 experiments with excess power gave some of the highest values  that 
I observed reaching about 0.38 W of excess power.
3 .Calculations show that  my cell producing 0.100 W of excess power at a cell 
current of 0.525 A will theoretically produce 10.7 ppb He-4 for the D + D = 
He-4  reaction.  The measurement of He-4   for this experiment  reported a 
value of 12.2 ppb.  Subtracting my background gives 7.4 ppb.  These 
measurements  of  He-4 claimed an accuracy of +- 0.1 ppb, thus this result is a 
74 sigma effect in terms of the He-4 measurements. This experiment was the most 
accurate in terms of He-4 measurements.  Other groups measuring He-4 for my 
experiments reported an accuracy of about +-1.0 ppb.  Even for a 5 ppb 
measurement above background, this represents a 5 sigma effect.  The background 
using metal flasks was 4.5 +-0.5 ppb for experiments with no excess power, and 
this background was always subtracted in my reports of He-4 production.
4.  The diffusion of He-4 was later measured for these same glass flasks, and 
the results would not have affected my 1990 results using these  glass  flasks. 
 There was no diffusion of He-4 into the metal flasks that were later used.
5. My 1990 results used Pd/HO as controls.  There was no excess power measured 
and no He'd produced.
6.  This work has been  replicated by several different groups including 
Mackerel at SRI with funding from DAR PA.

Mel Miles

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:12:35 -0500 "Dr. Mitchell Swartz" 
> writes:
January 26, 2018

Brian,

 Please, I expect more from you.
 Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements,
now BROADCAST ON BOTH CMNS and VORTEX.

Please re-consider Brian, because yours is a wrongful attack
on Mel Miles who does not deserve this - and my field
which does not deserve this.

Reasons:  

1) penetrating ionizing radiation is FORBIDDEN.
 (see paper for refs). This is not the first time you
  havae ignored this.

2) watts is power, not energy.  This, too, is not the first
  time you did this. And at MIT we now measure MICROWATTS
  in a calibrated fashion.

3-6) Mel, if memory serves, DID account for diffusion
and DID do background calibrations.
 So why do you say otherwise?
 Show me the data/info to back up your claims -- beyond your hearsay.
I would like this for the following reasons:

 First, Mel Miles did more calibration, and data collection,
than you ever did on any Manelis expt or any nanomaterial
expt I saw at your home.

 Second, my aqueous expts got 5-15 watts excess power for
years (from ICCF10 to the Stirling engine expts, for example)
and I have shared privately with you MOAC#3 data showing more than 100 W
of excess power just this month

 So, you should consider stopping attacking those in the
CF/LANR/LENR field for several reasons.

First, there is no reason to attack because YOUR work did not give
excess heat. Why?  If you remember, I took several of your
samples, and added D and then they worked.  They worked
with gas loading (as the next paper at ICCF21 will show)
and they worked with the JET Energy novel loading method
which gave the open demos, and the other papers
(e.g. see 2nd paper)

 You should read THOSE papers, too; since I gave
YOU full acknowledgement.

Second, the field and XSH are REAL, and attacking the
few remaining scientists is wrong as it has NO REAL
BASIS is just 

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[John Berry]

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational
mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to
ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in
> Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later
> category.
>
>
>
> As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice
> man for this)
>
>
>
> Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an
> antigravitational force 
>
>
>
> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and
> the Pentagon ignoredthemt?
>
>
>
> And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not
> even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the
> reverse gyrotron?
>
>
>
> Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other
> credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately
> rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is
> that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply
> cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or
> more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years
> there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of
> hydrinos to test.
>
>
>
> The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If
> so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation
> of why it failed.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar
> work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim
> to have been the first …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:
>
>
>
> http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/
> summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>