[Vo]:A " Touchstone" analogy

[JonesBeene]

Going back in history 4500 years, give or take a few – some genius merchant or 
trader figured out a simple and accurate way to test the purity of gold.

The “touchstone” was a piece of dark schist type rock - which was  used for 
testing the putative gold by observing the color of the mark left on the stone 
when lightly rubbed (touched).

Gold can be alloyed with copper and other cheaper base metals without changing 
its color very much – but when that alloy is in tested on a touchstone, it 
becomes immediately apparent that the color has changed - if and when the gold 
has been diluted with any small amount of another metal.

 Supposedly the technique is almost foolproof for an experienced merchant – and 
it is still used today by jewelers and coin collectors.

This may have  some slight relevance to the Mizuno technique since both involve 
noble metals and a surface effect of mechanical contact. It does not take much 
in the way of contact of loss to get an answer.

A tiny amount of a precious metal will apparently make itself known in ways 
which are not obvious.

OK – it’s a slow News day…

Re: [Vo]: Seals

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with Bob. Conflat seals are good for very impressive vacuums.

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 3:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Seals

Hi Dave,

This looks like standard conflat UHV gear to me.  The typical gasket used for 
conflats is a fairly thick copper ring that is sealed by compression between 
knife edges turned into the conflat faces.  In absence of a description of a 
special gasket material, I would presume it is the standard copper gasket.

Bob

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:32 PM Dave Roberson 
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:





Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10



From: Dave Roberson
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake



Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a gasket 
between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to believe 
that nothing is required to prevent leaks.



Dave



Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10



With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my own 
question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone wanting 
to replicate the experiment.



Dave

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
Virus-free. 
www.avg.com

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

I'm not sure what work you are referring to:

This one had an open top and claimed excess heat.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTproduction.pdf

Here's one where he had a top on it and showed mostly no excess heat, but
supposedly excess hydrogen.  The alleged episodes of excess heat are pretty
weak.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgenerationa.pdf

 Has a top on.  Doesn't even talk about excess heat, but instead focused on
excess hydrogen.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoThydrogenev.pdf

Looks like he had trouble replicating his own results.  Because he had a
top on the beaker?

Jack


On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>>> were likely compromised.
>>>
>>
>> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
>> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
>> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

Thank you.  If true, that refutes my point about his work being debunked.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
>> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
>> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
>> were likely compromised.
>>
>
> I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
> calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
> left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
> falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
> to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
> were likely compromised.
>

I did, at the time. I just reiterated the main reason. The method of
calorimetry was different. Only part of the water boiled, and none of it
left the cell. It is a bomb calorimeter.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>

I should at least explain the main reasons. Mizuno did not use the same
method of calorimetry Kowalski et al. used. He used a bomb calorimeter in a
closed, sealed cell. The water did not boil, and none of it escaped. So,
Kowalski's hypothesis about water leaving the cell does not apply.

Here is a photo of the cell:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Image05.jpg

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We disagree, so I'll drop it as not being productive.  I believe that the
falseness of Mizuno's previous results was exposed and he/you are unwilling
to spend the time to address the issues that showed how his experiments
were likely compromised.  This reminds me of the profs who refused to
address the results of MFMP and others who demonstrated the errors in
Lugano.  Why?  We don't know for certain the reasons for all of them, but
heard from some that they were satisfied with the results because they got
some colleagues to agree with them.  Ok.

I wanted this research to be true, but there's no evidence that it was.
Ugo Abundo kind of revived it and then it suffered the same problems as BEC
(decreasing COP) to the point that we hear nothing else from him.

My main point again was just caution and humility about Mizuno's current
results.  There is precedent for large errors.

Jack


On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:32 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
>> paper I linked
>>  to in the
>> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
>
>
>> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
>> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
>> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>>
>
> Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
> tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
> replication.
>
>
>
>>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
>> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
>> replicate some of his work and failed.
>>
>
> Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.
>
>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.

>>>
>>> What is BEC?
>>>
>>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>>
>
> Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
> knows.
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>>
>>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
>> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>>
>
> So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
> adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.
>
> You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
> replication is. No one can tell.
>
>
>
>> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>>
>
> I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
> read his papers and see they have not been replicated.
>
>
>
>>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>>
>
> Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
> sham" or:
>
> expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
> "the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
> synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,
>
> I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.
>
>
>
>> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
>> above.
>>
>
> I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
> explain why.
>
>

[Vo]:EVOs in Quantum computing

[Axil Axil]

Ken Shoulders contribution to LENR theory: the Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO)
might be useful for more things that just LENR. MFMP has photographed an
EVO near a strange radiation track recently using a low powered microscope.
The EVO is an ideal q-bit, a primary logic component of a quantum computer.
It is self powered, coherent, superfluidic and able to form a Bose
condensate. With the acceptance and understanding of this aspect of the
LENR reaction by science, that is, the understanding about what EVOs are
and the details about how they work, this understanding will form a LENR
knowledge base that will be a revolutionary breakthrough for the field of
quantum computing.

The major job of the Q-bit is to enter a state of quantum mechanical
superposition that gives the q-pit the ability to solve probabilistic and
exponential based problems, learn and even think. The number of q-bits that
can be created in a quantum computer enables the count of superpositions
that this computer can support to be equal to the 2 power exponent of the
number of those q-bits. 72 q-bits are the max so far implemented. But as we
have seen in the LION reactor, hundreds or even thousands of EVOs exist
inside a single micro diamond. A LENR system might one day support billions
of EVOs just like the number of neurons inside the human brain.

LENR tech could support an EVO based quantum computer that can run at
extremely high temperatures and supports millions of q-bits indefinably in
which the neuron like EVO is everlasting. With that level of processing
power, a eternal LENR machine can be built that can think and learn just
like people do.

For more information on the new directions in Quantum research see:

Job One for Quantum Computers: Boost Artificial Intelligence

The fusion of quantum computing and machine learning has become a booming
research area. Can it possibly live up to its high expectations?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/job-one-for-quantum-computers-boost-artificial-intelligence-20180129/


Leaving aside whether the human brain is a quantum computer — a highly
contentious question — it sometimes acts as if it were one. Human behavior
is notoriously contextual; our preferences are formed by the choices we are
given, in ways that defy logic. In this, we are like quantum particles.
“The way you ask questions and the ordering matters and that is something
that is very typical in quantum data sets,” Perdomo-Ortiz said. So a
quantum machine-learning system might be a natural way to study human
cognitive biases.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-quantum-brain.html


Quantum computer: We're planning to create one that acts like a brain

We need much more advanced AI if we want it to help us create things like
truly autonomous self-driving cars and systems for accurately managing the
traffic flow of an entire city in real-time. Many attempts to build this
kind of software involve writing code that mimics the way neurons in the
human brain work and combining many of these artificial neurons into a
network. Each neuron mimics a decision-making process by taking a number of
input signals and processing them to give an output corresponding to either
"yes" or "no".