[Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Hey gang, I would like to request (ask, beg, plead, beseech, supplicate) everyone to please refrain from OFF-TOPIC discussions in this list. It is very difficult and time-consuming to have to wade thru the numerous off-topic posts. Filters simply won't work in filtering for the simple reason that members here do not have the discipline to confine nuggets of gold away from off topic threads. I find myself having to review all off topic discussions so that I don't miss important information imbedded in these off topic threads. I myself have contributed my share of OFF-TOPIC threads and I have been roundly criticized and cussed at for it more so for the content of Off topic post than for being off topic. I have disciplined myself from posting my pet off topic subject because of my respect for the value of this forum. The topic of Cold Fusion is such an important field that I think it deserves everyone's cooperation such that this list does not get cluttered. Vortex-L, has become the premier discussion forum for Cold Fusion, and we members here have an opportunitiy to advance our knowledge in this field. Let's not waste this opportunity by cluttering it with politics, socialism, religion etc. PLEASE, Vortex-L is not the place to advance our own personal agenda or beliefs. I know everyone has their own pet beliefs that they think is so important for everyone else to know - I do too. Since many many here are well-informed, whatever, off-topic topic you want to discuss, many here would have been aware of that already. Maybe, until such time as Bill agrees to convert this list into a forum format, everyone could benefit from less chatter and more talk about Cold Fusion. If this list is converted to a forum format, it will be more capable of managing off-topic discussions, maybe that will be the time when we can freely post our numerous pet beliefs. Let's bring OFF-TOPIC discussions to Vortex-B or somewhere else. In peace, Jojo
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
I disagree. Off topic subjects are often food for thought. Some seem off topic at first, but turn out to be on topic. I have often posted news items and things that caught my attention from books I am reading that seemed off topic. After some discussion here I realize why they caught my attention and why they do, in fact, have some bearing on cold fusion. Cold fusion is a broad subject. If we overcome the opposition and cold fusion energy is used, historians, sociologists, economists and others will eventually write thousands of books on this subject, trying to explain what happened, why it happened. They will try to explain why there was such tremendous opposition, why people such as Rossi acted the way they did, who really discovered cold fusion, and so on. Cold fusion is the most important discovery in the recorded history of technology. Only a few prehistoric discoveries such as fire and domesticated animals outweigh it. It will revolutionize many aspects of daily life, and many other technologies. It will force us to rethink our attitudes toward science and research, funding for research, and our ideas about where technology originates, who gets the credit, and who should get the profits. It will change history; it will change the face of the earth; and it will help open the whole solar system to exploration and colonization. It is hard to imagine a bigger subject, or one that has more on-topic ramifications. Needless to say, if we cannot overcome the political opposition, or if Rossi and the other researchers continue to act as their Own Worst Enemies, then cold fusion will be a forgotten footnote to history, and we will continue to blunder our way to ecological disaster and world-wide poverty with existing energy systems. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
From Bill's pages: The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on taboo physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Before you subscribe, please see the rules below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist list. There is no charge, but donations towards expenses are recommended. With the above definition the list will always contain a lot of noise. It is not the physics department, it's the starbucks just in front of it. A good software filter may help finding relevant topics. mic 2012/6/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I disagree. Off topic subjects are often food for thought. Some seem off topic at first, but turn out to be on topic. I have often posted news items and things that caught my attention from books I am reading that seemed off topic. After some discussion here I realize why they caught my attention and why they do, in fact, have some bearing on cold fusion. Cold fusion is a broad subject. If we overcome the opposition and cold fusion energy is used, historians, sociologists, economists and others will eventually write thousands of books on this subject, trying to explain what happened, why it happened. They will try to explain why there was such tremendous opposition, why people such as Rossi acted the way they did, who really discovered cold fusion, and so on. Cold fusion is the most important discovery in the recorded history of technology. Only a few prehistoric discoveries such as fire and domesticated animals outweigh it. It will revolutionize many aspects of daily life, and many other technologies. It will force us to rethink our attitudes toward science and research, funding for research, and our ideas about where technology originates, who gets the credit, and who should get the profits. It will change history; it will change the face of the earth; and it will help open the whole solar system to exploration and colonization. It is hard to imagine a bigger subject, or one that has more on-topic ramifications. Needless to say, if we cannot overcome the political opposition, or if Rossi and the other researchers continue to act as their Own Worst Enemies, then cold fusion will be a forgotten footnote to history, and we will continue to blunder our way to ecological disaster and world-wide poverty with existing energy systems. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jed, I agree. Cold Fusion touches every aspect of our lives and society, but that does not mean every aspect of our lives and society is appropriate for this forum. One may argue that some topics are marginally relevant but surely, you can agree that some topics are way off topic. Surely you can agree that Wisconsin politics, school lunches, dead Everest Bodies and the like are completely inappropriate. (Although I did find Everest Dead Bodies Interesting to say the least.) And to be honest, I do find your posts thought provoking many times, but just because they are thought provoking does not mean they are appropriate for this forum. Let's keep Vortex-l on topic - that is, discussion of Crackpot Theories, Cold Fusion, Free Energy and Taboo Physics. Jojo PS. I can make the case that Intelligent Design being a Crackpot Theory (n your eyes), is a topic more appropriate for Vortex-l when compared to topics like school lunches. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list! I disagree. Off topic subjects are often food for thought. Some seem off topic at first, but turn out to be on topic. I have often posted news items and things that caught my attention from books I am reading that seemed off topic. After some discussion here I realize why they caught my attention and why they do, in fact, have some bearing on cold fusion. Cold fusion is a broad subject. If we overcome the opposition and cold fusion energy is used, historians, sociologists, economists and others will eventually write thousands of books on this subject, trying to explain what happened, why it happened. They will try to explain why there was such tremendous opposition, why people such as Rossi acted the way they did, who really discovered cold fusion, and so on. Cold fusion is the most important discovery in the recorded history of technology. Only a few prehistoric discoveries such as fire and domesticated animals outweigh it. It will revolutionize many aspects of daily life, and many other technologies. It will force us to rethink our attitudes toward science and research, funding for research, and our ideas about where technology originates, who gets the credit, and who should get the profits. It will change history; it will change the face of the earth; and it will help open the whole solar system to exploration and colonization. It is hard to imagine a bigger subject, or one that has more on-topic ramifications. Needless to say, if we cannot overcome the political opposition, or if Rossi and the other researchers continue to act as their Own Worst Enemies, then cold fusion will be a forgotten footnote to history, and we will continue to blunder our way to ecological disaster and world-wide poverty with existing energy systems. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jed, I agree. Cold Fusion touches every aspect of our lives and society, but that does not mean every aspect of our lives and society is appropriate for this forum. One may argue that some topics are marginally relevant but surely, you can agree that some topics are way off topic. Surely you can agree that Wisconsin politics, school lunches, dead Everest Bodies and the like are completely inappropriate. (Although I did find Everest Dead Bodies Interesting to say the least.) And with vortex b available for off-topic stuff, there is no need for it here. Vortex b gets very few topics; it is not a cesspool or pit or whatever it is that orionworks thinks it is. There is a Grok living there, but surely he can be ignored. And even if it is a pit, that's tough: why should we be stuck with political and other junk here? Take it to the pit, where it belongs. I think it is time for another exemplary banning.
RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
UPDATE: I was asked about the EPRI data in the Ahern report - showing cooling with titanium nanopowder, and finally got in touch with Brian. He did not include the data in the final report, merely a summation. He stands by the cooling effect as valid and repeatable; but the effect was not as strong as I previously suggested (not an order of magnitude effect). In conclusion, nano-cooling is a niche which is begging for replication but it is not as significant an anomaly as is the heating effect with nickel nanopowder. -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 1. If a neutron can disappear into the vacuum, then: 1a. Can a neutron pop INTO this space (spontaneous formation)? Let me just say this. There have been for a long time - reports of spontaneous (anomalous) hydrogen showing up in extreme vacuum conditions. Hydrogen from nowhere, essentially. But that phenomenon, if true, has morphed into fringe religious bogosity so one hesitates to even mention it. There was an article in IE and it has been picked up here, for what it is worth: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/06/hydrogen_from_space_the_aether.html This is not the same as neutrons from nowhere, except that the neutron has only a short half-life, and you expect to see hydrogen in the end. Does that account for the hydrogen phenomenon, and if so, where is the decay energy? Does trans-dimensional transfer happen isothermally, regardless? (at least from the perspective of the host) That would be the only way it could happen. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
Thanks for the update Jones. If the cooling effect is valid then it should be pursued. Any time an anomalous occurrence is registered an opportunity to discover a new relationship exists which may allow us to fit additional parts of the puzzle into place. I would assume that the cooling process is about as evasive as the heating effect. Please keep us informed about this issue as new data is revealed. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 11:40 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos) UPDATE: I was asked about the EPRI data in the Ahern report - showing cooling with itanium nanopowder, and finally got in touch with Brian. He did not include the data in the final report, merely a summation. He stands by the cooling effect as valid and repeatable; but the effect was not s strong as I previously suggested (not an order of magnitude effect). In conclusion, nano-cooling is a niche which is begging for replication but it s not as significant an anomaly as is the heating effect with nickel anopowder. -Original Message- rom: MarkI-ZeroPoint 1. If a neutron can disappear into the vacuum, then: 1a. Can a neutron pop INTO this space (spontaneous formation)? Let me just say this. There have been for a long time - reports of spontaneous anomalous) hydrogen showing up in extreme vacuum conditions. Hydrogen from owhere, essentially. But that phenomenon, if true, has morphed into fringe eligious bogosity so one hesitates to even mention it. There was an article in E and it has been picked up here, for what it is worth: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/06/hydrogen_from_space_the_aether.html This is not the same as neutrons from nowhere, except that the neutron has only short half-life, and you expect to see hydrogen in the end. Does that account or the hydrogen phenomenon, and if so, where is the decay energy? Does rans-dimensional transfer happen isothermally, regardless? (at least from the erspective of the host) That would be the only way it could happen. Jones
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Post no bills.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Surely you can agree that Wisconsin politics, school lunches, dead Everest Bodies and the like are completely inappropriate. (Although I did find Everest Dead Bodies Interesting to say the least.) I agree they are OFF TOPIC. They should be marked OFF TOPIC. With any modern e-mail reader it is easy to automatically delete all messages with this heading. If you do not wish to see these messages, take a moment to change your settings. I agree that if people want to introduce off-topic comments into a discussion, they should start a new thread with OFF TOPIC in the heading. Along the same lines, when the topic starts to drift, I would appreciate it if people would start a new thread with a new heading, on-topic or off. It is ridiculous that we have a technology that can solve most of the world's technological problems such as global warming but we are so inept we cannot even persuade Incidentally, school lunches are ON TOPIC insofar as a 9-year-old girl has gotten more attention, more hits, public support and funding for her cause in 4 days of on-line presence than cold fusion researchers have attracted in 23 years. That tells we are not doing a good job promoting cold fusion on the Internet. Shame on us. The Vortex-BL list is for controversial stuff, not off-topic stuff. It is difficult to define what is off-topic in cold fusion, or how far off it has to be before it should be marked. It is even more difficult to define what is inappropriate. Frankly, I do not see any point to trying to define that. Who cares? Let's keep Vortex-l on topic - that is, discussion of Crackpot Theories, Cold Fusion, Free Energy and Taboo Physics. Vortex-L has always had a broader range of topic than this. If you want a more restricted forum, join the CMNS group. I have heard it is pretty good these days. (I am not a member.) You could join both. I don't understand why extra verbiage bothers you. It isn't as if we are running out of room on the Internet. Maybe you need better e-mail filtering. Gmail is pretty good. You can set a filter to auto-delete messages based on the sender (a kill-file), or the content, or you can shuffle messages off into a separate folder, such as Vortex OFF TOPIC. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jed, I believe you are missing the point. 1. Extra verbiage does not bother me, it's the clumsy mailing list format that's causing a lot of heartache. It sends you all the mail and it clogs my Internet pipe. (I don't have a fast pipe like you have.) The problem in not so much in the amount of threads, but rather in how the threads are delivered to you because of the Mailing List format. I have asked Bill to consider changing to a Forum Format to improve efficiency, but I am hitting a brick wall. 2. As mentioned, mail filtering based on Off Topic in the subject line is not very efffective, because it filters out the entire thread including all subsequent responses. Many times, an Off Topic thread does diverge into some very useful discussion. I do not want to filter because I do not want to miss anything. There are nuggets of gold in some off topic threads. (I can remember that LENR in Aircraft discussion that diverged and covered a lot of useful LENR information from Axil.) 3. This mailing list looses responses that does not show up in the Web interface, hence I am forced to review every response whether on topic or off topic. 4. Vortex-L is not for our personal agenda. Cluttering the list only serves to dilute its effectiveness as a useful resource. 5. The mailing list format is only effective if there are few users with more relevant post with a high S/N ratio. With more members comes more clutter with increasing difficulty in managing. A Forum Format would help alleviate many problems. Maybe you can help me prevail upon Bill to do this. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list! Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Surely you can agree that Wisconsin politics, school lunches, dead Everest Bodies and the like are completely inappropriate. (Although I did find Everest Dead Bodies Interesting to say the least.) I agree they are OFF TOPIC. They should be marked OFF TOPIC. With any modern e-mail reader it is easy to automatically delete all messages with this heading. If you do not wish to see these messages, take a moment to change your settings. I agree that if people want to introduce off-topic comments into a discussion, they should start a new thread with OFF TOPIC in the heading. Along the same lines, when the topic starts to drift, I would appreciate it if people would start a new thread with a new heading, on-topic or off. It is ridiculous that we have a technology that can solve most of the world's technological problems such as global warming but we are so inept we cannot even persuade Incidentally, school lunches are ON TOPIC insofar as a 9-year-old girl has gotten more attention, more hits, public support and funding for her cause in 4 days of on-line presence than cold fusion researchers have attracted in 23 years. That tells we are not doing a good job promoting cold fusion on the Internet. Shame on us. The Vortex-BL list is for controversial stuff, not off-topic stuff. It is difficult to define what is off-topic in cold fusion, or how far off it has to be before it should be marked. It is even more difficult to define what is inappropriate. Frankly, I do not see any point to trying to define that. Who cares? Let's keep Vortex-l on topic - that is, discussion of Crackpot Theories, Cold Fusion, Free Energy and Taboo Physics. Vortex-L has always had a broader range of topic than this. If you want a more restricted forum, join the CMNS group. I have heard it is pretty good these days. (I am not a member.) You could join both. I don't understand why extra verbiage bothers you. It isn't as if we are running out of room on the Internet. Maybe you need better e-mail filtering. Gmail is pretty good. You can set a filter to auto-delete messages based on the sender (a kill-file), or the content, or you can shuffle messages off into a separate folder, such as Vortex OFF TOPIC. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Reformat paragraphs a little. This is supposed to go: Incidentally, school lunches are ON TOPIC insofar as a 9-year-old girl has gotten more attention, more hits, public support and funding for her cause in 4 days of on-line presence than cold fusion researchers have attracted in 23 years. . . . It is ridiculous that we have a technology that can solve most of the world's technological problems such as global warming but we are so inept we cannot even persuade people to pay attention to it. Regarding the comment that politics are off topic -- If you think that politics has nothing to do with cold fusion, you do not understand the history of the field. If it were not for academic politics, the technical challenges would have been resolved in a few years, and by now every automobile and factory would be powered with cold fusion. Politics are the alpha and omega of cold fusion. If we could solve the political problem -- the problems caused by human nature -- we would solve everything else. Cold fusion has lingered without funding and without much progress, always in danger of extinction, for two reasons: 1. The opponents are nasty, stupid jerks, and political animals. 2. Supporters and researchers are nasty, stupid, self-destructive jerks, and political animals. That's life. People are what they are. It isn't as if we have a better class of primates waiting in wings, prepared to take over the world and correct the problems caused by our nature. I hope not, anyway. I have not seen Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Movies like that frighten me. I can barely watch the trailer. It looks pretty good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: 1. Extra verbiage does not bother me, it's the clumsy mailing list format that's causing a lot of heartache. It sends you all the mail and it clogs my Internet pipe. (I don't have a fast pipe like you have.) The problem in not so much in the amount of threads, but rather in how the threads are delivered to you because of the Mailing List format. Maybe you need the Mozilla Thunderbird e-mail reader. It does a good job sorting out the threads in various ways. I use both Thunderbird and the on-line gmail reader. A Forum Format would help alleviate many problems. Maybe you can help me prevail upon Bill to do this. Honestly, I don't know anything about it and I have no opinion. You mentioned creationism. That is a good candidate for filtering. With gmail it is easy to build a filter that auto-deletes any message with that word in it. Presto -- problem solved. It is not like you are obligated to read every message in Vortex. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Vortex is for me, a forum where I have old e-friends. In my opinion very strict rules are not necessary- if somebody wants to tell me about an interesting subject- fine. If the subject is not interesting for me, I am deletimg the message a few seconds of work. Peter On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: 1. Extra verbiage does not bother me, it's the clumsy mailing list format that's causing a lot of heartache. It sends you all the mail and it clogs my Internet pipe. (I don't have a fast pipe like you have.) The problem in not so much in the amount of threads, but rather in how the threads are delivered to you because of the Mailing List format. Maybe you need the Mozilla Thunderbird e-mail reader. It does a good job sorting out the threads in various ways. I use both Thunderbird and the on-line gmail reader. A Forum Format would help alleviate many problems. Maybe you can help me prevail upon Bill to do this. Honestly, I don't know anything about it and I have no opinion. You mentioned creationism. That is a good candidate for filtering. With gmail it is easy to build a filter that auto-deletes any message with that word in it. Presto -- problem solved. It is not like you are obligated to read every message in Vortex. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That's life. People are what they are. It isn't as if we have a better class of primates waiting in wings, prepared to take over the world and correct the problems caused by our nature. I hope not, anyway. I have not seen Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Movies like that frighten me. I can barely watch the trailer. It looks pretty good. They want man's red flower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTM ;-) harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Vortex is for me, a forum where I have old e-friends. In my opinion very strict rules are not necessary- if somebody wants to tell me about an interesting subject- fine. If the subject is not interesting for me, I am deletimg the message a few seconds of work. Peter I love the Starbucks analogy from an earlier post. The posts here are a fantastic mix of things -- cutting edge physics; fascinating back-of-the-envelope engineering estimates; baseless, unwarranted speculation; improbable theories; interesting economic analyses; and a trickling of sometimes objective and always biased political commentaries. All of it conjures up an image of the coffee houses from the eighteenth century. The archives make it clear that there's been a fairly random assortment of postings going back to 1995. Some of the people in this thread have been on this list since 1995. We should defer to their preferences here. In addition, we should not be afraid of having our beliefs respectfully challenged; we should actively seek this out. With Gmail, the conversations are automatically threaded. Eric
RE: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
* Maybe you need the Mozilla Thunderbird e-mail reader. It does a good job sorting out the threads in various ways. Most of it is innocuous, but what you are suggesting is making lots of people on the list go to significant trouble in order to accommodate a few off-topic posters ... which is not fair since the B-list is available for that. Plus the problem/temptations will only become worse as November approaches. How many are on this list anyway? In the past, most of the regular posters (including moi) were guilty of politicizing on-topic discussions as well as off-topic ... at least before the important elections. Do we really need a repeat of that? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the update Jones. If the cooling effect is valid then it should be pursued. Any time an anomalous occurrence is registered an opportunity to discover a new relationship exists which may allow us to fit additional parts of the puzzle into place. Agreed. The cooling effect is very interesting. It brings the question of conservation of energy to the fore. If normal LENR is like a box with a button on it, which once pressed causes heat to spill out, can you have another box with a button that, when pressed, causes cooling to occur? At face value, it sounds like some basic principle is being violated. The secret here might be in the materials, where nickel is used for heating and titanium is used for cooling. In the process peaks in the energy potential of the environment are gradually smoothed out and move towards some kind of baseline. If you had large LENR power stations operating over decades and centuries, pumping heat into the environment, would this just result in a change in the equilibrium of the environment such that more incoming solar energy would then be reflected into space, or would there be a need for active cooling of some kind? Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Jed, a Forum Format is the forum format found in sites like ECatplanet.com. In a Forum Format, the post are organized into seperate threads, where users can only click to see a thread that interests them. Not like the Vortex mailing list format where all threads are stuff down your email. Surely you can agree that a Forum Format is more efficient. Maybe you can help me prevail upon Bill to convert this list into a Forum Format. For that matter, maybe the regular old folks here can see the benefit of a Forum Format and help me prevail upon Bill to convert. I find it perplexing why this suggestion of mine is not receiving its rightful support from old folks. Are old folks here really that content with this retrograde mailing list? It's time to get with the times. Mailing lists are so old tech and cumbersome. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list! A Forum Format would help alleviate many problems. Maybe you can help me prevail upon Bill to do this. Honestly, I don't know anything about it and I have no opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
An LENR like technique that achieves active cooling would be an interesting discovery. It is normal for a black body radiator to loose energy and cool down by radiation and maybe a method exists to convert some of the thermal energy into another form such as neutrinos that can escape any system effortlessly. The natural world may have a lot of fancy 'tricks' that we have not yet uncovered. In normal stellar evolution I understand that iron is the last element synthesized within the core. Additional fusion is actually endothermic and would effectively be similar to what is suggested as a sink of energy that allows cooling. Perhaps this discovery is a low temperature variation of this effect. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos) On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the update Jones. If the cooling effect is valid then it should be pursued. Any time an anomalous occurrence is registered an opportunity to discover a new relationship exists which may allow us to fit additional parts of the puzzle into place. Agreed. The cooling effect is very interesting. It brings the question of conservation of energy to the fore. If normal LENR is like a box with a button on it, which once pressed causes heat to spill out, can you have another box with a button that, when pressed, causes cooling to occur? At face value, it sounds like some basic principle is being violated. The secret here might be in the materials, where nickel is used for heating and titanium is used for cooling. In the process peaks in the energy potential of the environment are gradually smoothed out and move towards some kind of baseline. If you had large LENR power stations operating over decades and centuries, pumping heat into the environment, would this just result in a change in the equilibrium of the environment such that more incoming solar energy would then be reflected into space, or would there be a need for active cooling of some kind? Eric
[Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
Hey Gang, Is anyone here aware of an easy test for the presence of Carbon Nanotubes? Easy being simple and inexpensive and accessible to ordinary folks without expensive equipment. A Test that would quantify the amount of carbon nanotubes would be better than simply telling me that they are present. I am testing my nanotube reactor but I am unsure how much nanotubes I am creating if any. Is there a chemical out there that would react exclusively with nanotubes only. Alternatively, a chemical that would strip away the carbon soot and ordinary carbon particles and leave behind only carbon nanotubes would work also. I am aware that there is a CNT purification process, but a google search reveal nothing within my reach or capability. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
test passed!
RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
Yesterday, Robin mentioned that under the theory of Mills, the hydrino cannot be easily contained after it gives up significant energy - and would eventually migrate out of the structure like a neutron (being subject to gravity) and eventually “disappear” anyway – so there is no need for another sudden kind of “disappearance” where mass/energy is completely removed from the observer’s reality, resulting in cooling. Presumably the spent hydrino (from heating) would migrate to the center of earth, due to its effective density and neutrality, and thus it is almost completely removed from the observer’s reality as well. The point of difference being the net loss (or gain) which was seen at the original source of the reaction. I had the thought that the two routes to hydrogen disappearance, if they are ever proved - could be connected via some kind of CoE linkage. A ‘cosmic balance sheet’ of sorts. That would involve “reciprocal space” having its own gravity link. Maybe the hot and cold particles, both formerly hydrogen atoms, complete the cycle in the earth’s gravity well. There has always been talk of a very dense core for earth, denser than any element – in fact similar to the so-called neutron star. Neutron stars contain the densest matter that is directly observable, but it is probably not neutrons per se – more like “quark soup”. Earth may have a few teaspoons of quark soup material at the very center, a few gigatons where everything dense goes to get “regauged” according to Bearden, or “regrooved” according to Firesign. … don’t crush that dwarf :-) From: Eric Walker David Roberson wrote: Thanks for the update Jones. If the cooling effect is valid then it should be pursued. Any time an anomalous occurrence is registered an opportunity to discover a new relationship exists which may allow us to fit additional parts of the puzzle into place. Agreed. The cooling effect is very interesting. It brings the question of conservation of energy to the fore. If normal LENR is like a box with a button on it, which once pressed causes heat to spill out, can you have another box with a button that, when pressed, causes cooling to occur? At face value, it sounds like some basic principle is being violated. The secret here might be in the materials, where nickel is used for heating and titanium is used for cooling. In the process peaks in the energy potential of the environment are gradually smoothed out and move towards some kind of baseline. If you had large LENR power stations operating over decades and centuries, pumping heat into the environment, would this just result in a change in the equilibrium of the environment such that more incoming solar energy would then be reflected into space, or would there be a need for active cooling of some kind? Eric attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
I don't know about nanotubes, but b-fullerene is soluable in something easy and it turns it purpleish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19655724 -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:53 PM To: Vortex Subject: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes Hey Gang, Is anyone here aware of an easy test for the presence of Carbon Nanotubes? Easy being simple and inexpensive and accessible to ordinary folks without expensive equipment. A Test that would quantify the amount of carbon nanotubes would be better than simply telling me that they are present. I am testing my nanotube reactor but I am unsure how much nanotubes I am creating if any. Is there a chemical out there that would react exclusively with nanotubes only. Alternatively, a chemical that would strip away the carbon soot and ordinary carbon particles and leave behind only carbon nanotubes would work also. I am aware that there is a CNT purification process, but a google search reveal nothing within my reach or capability. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
I wrote: It brings the question of conservation of energy to the fore. If normal LENR is like a box with a button on it, which once pressed causes heat to spill out, can you have another box with a button that, when pressed, causes cooling to occur? At face value, it sounds like some basic principle is being violated. I don't think it's CoE that is the problem in this case, it's the second law of thermodynamics -- entropy can only increase. If you took the LENR experiment with the tungsten in which cooling is being observed and placed the entire apparatus in a calorimeter, wouldn't you expect (require?) the balance of heat given off by the system to be positive? The question of nickel v. tungsten is more complex than I implied. If I remember correctly, there are experiments with tungsten in which heat was produced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
I wrote: The question of nickel v. tungsten is more complex than I implied. If I remember correctly, there are experiments with tungsten in which heat was produced. The experiment involved titanium nanopowder, not tungsten. But I see now that there have been experiments using titanium in which power was produced; in several, around a single watt, and in one, 76 watts. So if Brian Ahern's anecdotal data are allowed, titanium can yield both power and localized cooling (perhaps energy is being fed into the system from the power outlet to accomplish this). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: … don’t crush that dwarf :-) Hand me the pliers. (Without knowing the reference, this sounds crazy.) T
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
I wrote: So if Brian Ahern's anecdotal data are allowed, titanium can yield both power and localized cooling (perhaps energy is being fed into the system from the power outlet to accomplish this). I'm all mixed up. There are the ice packs, which absorb heat during a phase transition from solid to liquid. So (thinking out loud) there need not be a violation of CoE or the second law of thermodynamics for the titanium system to cool down, and there is more than one pathway that could account for this phenomenon. Importantly, there are temperature and heat, and in the case of ice packs, latent heat, and they need to be distinguished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_pack The temperature of ice packs decreases because they have a high enthalpy of fusion (not to be confused with nuclear fusion). But there is still energy (heat) going into the system, causing the overall energy to increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion According to the second article, most substances have a positive enthalpy of fusion, while 3He and 4He have negative enthalpies of fusion at low temperatures. This means they freeze rather than melt with the addition of heat. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
As I recall, the titanium experiments with thermal gain have been with deuterium. Do you have reference to gain with Ti-H instead of Ti-D? But even if titanium can go either way, and it can be determined that some experiments with hydrogen and other “nano-metric” metals result in excess heat, and some with cooling, then it will possible to look closely to find what third factors are contributory (to whether the reaction goes to net-cooling or net-cooling). IOW – what I am saying is that perhaps ALL reactions with hydrogen loaded metal result in a mix of the two, even the ones that are massively gainful in heat. Perhaps those, such as in Rossi claims, are 90/10 (hot/cold). Perhaps Ahern titanium samples gave 47/53 and it appeared to be cooling but it was only net cooling with significant heat also. If the “missing neutron” or “missing hydrino” ends up with a huge loss of mass-energy, then that covers up a lot of excess heat prior to the loss. This can explain why LERN is generally unreliable – a natural tendency to produce a balance of excess heat and excess cooling - and it requires some unknown intervention to shift the balance. From: Eric Walker * * there have been experiments using titanium in which power was produced; in several, around a single watt, and in one, 76 watts. So if Brian Ahern's anecdotal data are allowed, titanium can yield both power and localized cooling (perhaps energy is being fed into the system from the power outlet to accomplish this). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
That was helpful... -m -Original Message- From: Иванов Михаил [mailto:i-...@yandex.ru] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes test passed!
RE: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
test passed!
Re: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_probe Langmuir probe A *Langmuir probe* is a device named after Nobel Prizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prizewinning physicist Irving Langmuir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Langmuir, used to determine the electron temperature, electron density, and electric potential of a plasma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics). It works by inserting one or more electrodes into a plasma, with a constant or time-varying electric potential between the various electrodes or between them and the surrounding vessel. The measured currents and potentials in this system allow the determination of the physical properties of the plasma. Then see http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~rmerlino/APS_05_dust_MS.pdf *CHARGING OF DUST IN A NEGATIVE ION PLASMA* ** *For a general overview of dusty plasma look at* ** http://wsx.lanl.gov/RSX/PPSS_2006/lectures/Goree_LANL_PPSS07.pdf ** *Fundamentals of Dusty Plasmas* * * If you need more Google the key words: * * langmuir probe carbon nanotube density Cheers: Axil On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hey Gang, Is anyone here aware of an easy test for the presence of Carbon Nanotubes? Easy being simple and inexpensive and accessible to ordinary folks without expensive equipment. A Test that would quantify the amount of carbon nanotubes would be better than simply telling me that they are present. I am testing my nanotube reactor but I am unsure how much nanotubes I am creating if any. Is there a chemical out there that would react exclusively with nanotubes only. Alternatively, a chemical that would strip away the carbon soot and ordinary carbon particles and leave behind only carbon nanotubes would work also. I am aware that there is a CNT purification process, but a google search reveal nothing within my reach or capability. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Test for the Existence of Carbon Nanotubes
test passed!
RE: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
Recently Vorl Bek and Jojo Jaro have suggested, OFF TOPIC discussions should be relegated to Vortex B, something to the effect that there is no need for OT discussions here. ...or perhaps they are simply suggesting that maybe I ought to pack up my bags and head for VoB. But then maybe I'm just paranoid. I sometimes wonder if Vorl or Jojo were Vortex participants four years ago during the last presidential elections. (I suspect not.) The old timers remember. Hint: It's likely to get lively again as November approaches. If that sounds disagreeable, perhaps a temporary vacation from Vortex is warranted. Many participants actually DO take vacations! I believe both Horace Heffner and Stephen Lawrence regularly opt out. Vorl recently stated: Vortex b gets very few topics; it is not a cesspool or pit or whatever it is that orionworks thinks it is. There is a Grok living there, but surely he can be ignored. And even if it is a pit, that's tough: why should we be stuck with political and other junk here? Take it to the pit, where it belongs. I think Vorl explained it better than I could as to why I do not use VoB. If Vorl believes he-who-shall-remain-nameless can be ignored, surely he can ignore me. (Don't worry, I won't take it personally.) IMO it is more a matter of doing one's best not to abuse Mr. Beaty's Vortex mailing list by intentionally cluttering it with an incessant number of Off Topic conversations, or by attempting to hijack the mailing list with one's own personal agenda. I do my best to observe and respect the interest issues of others. Since I have no interest in hijacking Vortex for my own nefarious reasons I try to keep my OFF TOPIC updates short but to the point... unless there is suddenly (and clearly) a LOT of interest shown by other participants, such as what happened when the Alien Abduction paradigm came up. I honestly don't remember who was responsible for starting that particular topic! I realize it is inevitable that some will disagree with some of my posted OT opinions. However, I certainly am not the only one who is guilty of such crimes. Again, I would like to remind some of the newer Vortex participants of what was going on here during the last presidential elections. HINT: It got very lively, but we survived. Yes, Jones, we DID survive it! It is likely get lively again. Vorl recently stated: I think it is time for another exemplary banning. Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't? It isn't Vorl's decision. Get over it. It has always been the prerogative of Mr. Beaty to ban whomever he pleases, including me. * * * Final comment: Some may have noticed that my participation in vortex has recently dropped off... perhaps to the relief of some. ;-) There are two reasons for that: 1) Wisconsin lost a lot of state employees over the last 18 months, primarily through retirements. That was directly a result of Governor Scott Walker's divide and conquer strategy. A HUGE number suddenly decided to retire out of fear of what would could possibly happen next. Those remaining, like me, have had to pick up the slack. It can drain you at the end of the day. 2) I'm trying to assemble years of personal research into the exploration of celestial mechanics through the use of computer simulations. I'm trying to assemble the information into a format that hopefully will be both educational and fun to watch. Maybe it might help spark an epiphany in someone. I suspect there might be a few Vortex members that would enjoy browsing the contents. It's a daunting task. My web site will have to be completely overhauled. I'll probably use XARA Web Designer as the primary editor. I was hoping to get the first installments out by Fall. Now, I'm not so sure. Again, I'm often drained at the end of the day. .and once again, I'm intentionally distracting myself by posting here. Regards, Steve Vincent Johnson Www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: Please! Let's do our part and keep OFF-TOPIC off this list!
From Jojo ... For that matter, maybe the regular old folks here can see the benefit of a Forum Format and help me prevail upon Bill to convert. I find it perplexing why this suggestion of mine is not receiving its rightful support from old folks. Are old folks here really that content with this retrograde mailing list? It's time to get with the times. Mailing lists are so old tech and cumbersome. Jojo, IMO, there is a reason you remain perplexed. Give it time. Since I will be turning 60 this August, perhaps that makes me an honorary old fart in training, but who knows. IMHO, this old primitive no-frills retrograde mailing list server has survived for decades precisely because it portends to be nothing more than what it is: a simple mailing list. Alas, there will always be young folks, that damned younger generation and all their infernal ideas, like Jojo, who will come along and want to stir things thing up, to improve things. And that is a GOOD thing. Sooner or later, they will succeed. I sure as hell hope they succeed! However, and this is just as a suggestion, wanting to overhaul vortex may not be the best approach to improving things. Have you considered creating the kind of forum you envision Vortex ought to be yourself? From what I can tell working with web editing tools, like WORD PRESS, would be very good at putting together such a forum. It's easy software to use. It's designed to manage forums. Set something up, and then begin advertising the fact that such a new and improved forum exists, so come on over! What's stopping you? Build it, and they will come. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_Dreams Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
Reference: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATIONS IN THIN-FILM NICKEL COATINGS UNDERGOING ELECTROLYSIS George H. Miley and James A. Patterson Other key features observed in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 that must be accounted for by any theory include the “gaps” between high yield products and the high Ag and Cd yields. Ag (and Cd) production is particularly challenging, since *Ag occurs in large quantities but is not favored energetically. Ag’s position, well to the lower binding energy side of Ni, infers an endothermic reaction (negative Q-value), which in turn suggests energy transfer to the reactants must occur to drive the reaction. *(This is analogous to driving negative Q-value reactions by colliding high-energy reactants using accelerated beams. As defined here, Q values are the energy released due to the mass difference between reactants and products, assuming that the reactants enter with zero kinetic or excitation energy.) Consequently, the model must contain a mechanism for energy storage/transfer to reactions involved in high Z element production. A postulated reaction model, RIFEX (Reaction in a Film-Excited CompleX), is under development to satisfy these key characteristics. A major feature of RIFEX is that protons (p) interacting with the host Ni and neighboring isotopes produces a relatively long lived atom-p complex with excitation energies of orders of several MeV. *This allows production of elements such as Ag with Q-value reactions. Seemingly, other products with a negative Q value are produced via fission of compound nuclei. *This model will be presented in detail in a future publication. What kind of transmutation is going on. Heavy elements like Ag On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: So if Brian Ahern's anecdotal data are allowed, titanium can yield both power and localized cooling (perhaps energy is being fed into the system from the power outlet to accomplish this). I'm all mixed up. There are the ice packs, which absorb heat during a phase transition from solid to liquid. So (thinking out loud) there need not be a violation of CoE or the second law of thermodynamics for the titanium system to cool down, and there is more than one pathway that could account for this phenomenon. Importantly, there are temperature and heat, and in the case of ice packs, latent heat, and they need to be distinguished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_pack The temperature of ice packs decreases because they have a high enthalpy of fusion (not to be confused with nuclear fusion). But there is still energy (heat) going into the system, causing the overall energy to increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion According to the second article, most substances have a positive enthalpy of fusion, while 3He and 4He have negative enthalpies of fusion at low temperatures. This means they freeze rather than melt with the addition of heat. Eric
[Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
I'm curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question. What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I'm certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute. it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to 'fringe' topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science. he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs). I don't remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with. especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy). that phrase is, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. you know the rest Dr. Finnegan's gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students' minds. it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact. we know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and 'always' and 'never' and 'impossible' are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like 'very unlikely', or 'highly improbable'. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics. improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs)… I don’t remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a qualifying phrase which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with… especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy)… that phrase is, “IN A CLOSED SYSTEM…” you know the rest Dr. Finnegan’s gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students’ minds… it makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact… we know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and ‘always’ and ‘never’ and ‘impossible’ are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like ‘very unlikely’, or ‘highly improbable’. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics… improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
Eric, perhaps you noticed my reference to neutrinos easily escaping the system along with their associated energy. That was my way of evading the CoE in the closed environment. Actually, that was the way they were originally proposed; a way to explain the variation in energy associated with beta decay. The neutrino came to the rescue of the CoE in that case. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
RE: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
I’m probably sitting between 3 to 4, and here is why… Empirical evidence for the existence of the zero-point field (ZPF) is now well established… what that means is that there is something present that we are only recently beginning to understand. The only important question relevant to this thread is then, can the ZPF interact with ‘normal matter’ (subatomic particles, atoms, molecules) and take part in transforming into a more common form of energy. If so, then any experiment that encounters anomalous energy balance (+ or -) would need to ask the question, could the experiment be triggering a conversion of ZPF energy to one of the ‘regular’ forms of energy (or vice-a-versa)? Last I checked, I couldn’t buy a ZPF meter from Fluke Instruments, so how does one know if the ZPF is being tapped? Also as far as I know, you can’t exclude all the ZPF from a region…. So you cannot say definitively that it isn’t a ZPF/matter interaction. Granted, given experiments which are within the normal range of things, anomalies are almost always error. But if the conditions of the experimental system are rare or extreme in some manner, and you get anomalous results, you have to take a serious look at the possibility of new physics; new interactions. I asked this all important question of Dr. Rueda (recently mentioned here) many years ago when we had lunch at Cal State Long Beach, “can the ZPF be converted into one of the ‘known’ forms of energy?”. His answer was, “A way to do that has not yet popped out from all my derivations and calculations, however, I also haven’t come across anything that would prevent it.” So basically he said that it is a possibility… however remote that might be. That is the cautious and non-scientifically dogmatic answer I would expect from a true scientist. I’d like to ask him that same question now that a decade has passed… For those not familiar with Haisch and Rueda, Bernie Haisch had a conceptual idea which he began discussing with Dr. Rueda, regarding inertia. Dr. Rueda calls him one night, like 2am, and says to Dr. Haisch, “I’ve just derived f=ma”… that became the 1994 paper which almost didn’t get published because one of the peer reviewers said, “I can’t find any errors in your mathematics, and the physics looks good, but it just can’t be!” How’s that for a scientific review… As long as humans are doing science, cognitive dissonance will slow our discovery of the unknown… -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... Mark, you ask the tough questions. When I consider the possibility of a new energy form I have to think of the historic past. We are notoriously incapable of imagining things such as this unless some well observed phenomenon is unknown and accepted as true. Anything our senses can not detect on demand generally gets put into the category of 'I will believe it when I see it'. This is true until these new things are well published and accepted within the scientific community. There are still many things being observed by ourselves and others on rare occasions that have not been explained. The UFO observations suggest some very strange physics and the same can be mentioned when spirit type issues arise. A strange new energy form might well be lurking within these subjects. I would have to say that I suspect that your number 2 would apply in my open mind state. It is not necessary to invoke a new energy form to explain LENR as far as I have seen at this point, but who knows what might arise. There are some very strange things still going on in our research results. The unknown variables are the things that make this field most interesting to creative folks like us. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... I’m curious as to how fellow Vorts would answer this question… What are the chances that there is at least one undiscovered form of energy yet to be discovered? 0=No F*in Way 1=slight chance 2=reasonable chance 3=very good chance 4=I’m certain there are undiscovered forms of energy I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute… it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to ‘fringe’ topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science… he asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on
RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos) It is easy to go over the top with dramatization on this one. ... ...The interesting part (for this thread) is that with Titanium nanopowder, instead of a temperature inversion indicating gain, you get an anomalous sink. For instance, instead of an expected 10 degree drop (out-to-in) the spread can be much higher, an order of magnitude perhaps, indicating active cooling. I can think of many practical uses for an energy sink -- From car brakes that don't get hot to laptop coolers, and perhaps more importantly, the efficiency of a heat engine goes up quite fast the cooler the cold sink is, reaching 100% at absolute zero -- free energy from ambient temperature. There is also some anecdotal evidence that when a Steorn effect free energy motor is run backwards, it absorbs kinetic energy without getting hot. There really does seem to be something to this magnetic interaction effect. Several engineers including a professional engineer hired to independently verify it did verify it in a formal report. Also see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cRQu7M192g Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US
Re: [Vo]:Missing Neutrons (hydrinos)
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:27:19 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Perhaps the neutrons are captured in some manner and allowed to decay into proton, electron, and an electron antineutrino. The antineutrino would easily escape the system carrying away mass and energy. The total kinetic energy associated with the neutron in the test system would be reduced by that carried away. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. A lot depends upon the magnitude of energy that is carried away by the antineutrino. If it carries away all of the energy required to make a neutron from the parts, then this process might explain the loss of heat. Dave In the context of WL this might actually make sense. If the additional electron mass required to create the neutron in the first place came at the expense of thermal energy of the lattice, then the lattice would cool when the neutrons were created. If they decay without fusing, then on average about 580 keV is lost with the antineutrino. (Some may also be lost with the neutrino when the neutron is formed?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
The apparent lack of anti-matter in the universe is also conundrum from the standpoint of CoE. harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility rather than a necessity. Neutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of their creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during a subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain incomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE...
That is an interesting comment Harry. Are you suggesting that the neutrino is entangled with an electron other than the one released at the time of the decay? The oscillation between flavors of neutrinos makes that seem strange as it would require the end receptor to change with distance and thus time. Is the release of a neutrino significantly different than the release of a gamma ray regarding energy escape from a nucleus? Please explain what you mean by the statement that they remain incomplete until they interact. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The missing half of the Law of CoE... With respect to neutrinos and beta decay, CoE may be a possibility ather than a necessity. eutrinos would be regarded as incomplete entities at the moment of heir creation. They remain incomplete until they are destroyed during subsequent interaction. As long as they never interact, they remain ncomplete and CoE remains only a possibility rather than a necessity. Harry n Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. I don't know about the not a scientist part, but I personally have no profound attachment to CoE. :) Assume that CoE is understood today as: Eout - Ein = 0 What if, instead, it were really: Eout - Ein = k for very small k, or, more interestingly, Eout - Ein = f(t) for f(t) ~ 0 at this time. Scientists see fit to posit parallel universes and dark energy and so on, so I see no reason to conclude that the known universe is a closed system. Perhaps, every time there is a reaction that involves electromagnetic radiation, you get a little less out than goes in, and we just balance the books with neutrinos and other gimics that would make Enron proud. My earlier comments were a futile attempt to understand how a LENR reaction involving titanium could be endothermic. It's probably not all that difficult, as it turns out, and my lack of understanding of thermodynamics was getting in the way. Eric
