Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

Amino Acids are just the building blocks, the letters of the alphabet for 
building complex protein molecules.  You have to chain them correctly in the 
proper sequence to get even the simplest protein of 50 animo acids.  The 
chances of this occuring randomly is staggering in its own right, let alone 
come up with 300-500 of these proteins to come up with the simplest 
self-replicating life.  

Having amino acids is a far cry from the simplest protein and definitely a far 
far far cry to the simplest life form.  It's like saying since we found the 
letters A - Z, the novel "Romeo and Juliet" can be easily found also.

I have read your wikipedia articles, and I am suitably "impressed" by the level 
of its scholarship and integrity.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Colin Hercus 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability


  Hi Jojo,

  I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific 
sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest you 
check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are working on 
it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets, other solar 
systems and in extreme environments on earth.  Amino acids have been found in 
comet tails, they're really not that complicated. 

  Colin



  On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

You don't know that.  But even if it was, that still does not solve your 
abiogenesis problem.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Colin Hercus 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic 
Improbability





  On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Abd, I appreciate your comments.

After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several 
times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending.  Please restate your 
contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.

Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple 
hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions.  
I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they 
successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple 
hydrocarbons.  But one thing you need to realize, it never created any 
self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"

The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the 
correct conditions.  For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of 
hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen.  When the 
experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the 
animo acids just as quickly as it was created.  Hence, the experiment was 
designed on top of faulty assumptions.

  No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis 

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Colin Hercus]

Hi Jojo,

I'd hate to say I read it on Wikipedia, but there's also more scientific
sources than that. I'm not about to go do the research for you, I suggest
you check it out yourself. Abiogenesis is a problem and scientists are
working on it. That's a lot of why we looking for life on other planets,
other solar systems and in extreme environments on earth.  Amino acids have
been found in comet tails, they're really not that complicated.

Colin


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> You don't know that.  But even if it was, that still does not solve your
> abiogenesis problem.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Colin Hercus 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
> Improbability
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> Abd, I appreciate your comments.
>>
>> After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several
>> times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending.  Please restate
>> your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.
>>
>> Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple
>> hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric
>> conditions.  I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where
>> they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some
>> simple hydrocarbons.  But one thing you need to realize, it never created
>> any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"
>>
>> The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the
>> correct conditions.  For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere
>> of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen.  When the
>> experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed
>> the animo acids just as quickly as it was created.  Hence, the experiment
>> was designed on top of faulty assumptions.
>>
> No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Chemical Engineer]

Your theory sounds like out of star trek while mine is more battlestar
galactica

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

> Part 1
>
> John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during
> no movement (1 of 
> 2)
>
> Part 2
>
> John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during
> no movement (2 of 
> 2)
>
> My theory explains this anomaly through the teleportation of entangled
> particles and their decoherence when they come into contact with the copper
> lattice of the copper coil. The decoherence of the delocalized particles
> causes extra dimensional heat transport transportation from inside the
> reaction chamber.
>
> This also happens in the Rossi reactor to thermalize gamma radiation.
> Test your theory by explaining this anomaly. By the way, you can see this
> anomaly first hand and experiment with it by buying the $350 kit.
>
> That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize.
>
> Cheers:   Axil
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>
> Abd,
>
> First off,  thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with
> words.
>
> We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience.
>
> I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years
> and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems.  The bulk of my
> projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large
> concentrated solar thermal project.  I am currently working on a Natural
> Gas mid-stream storage & supply system.  I have to deal with alot of real
> world problems to make systems in the field perform.  Not all do.
>  Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects
> all work.
>
> When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring
> to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat
> gains.  I also see a wide range of radiation emissions  claimed from
> nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire)
>  I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both
> of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor
> which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to
> market.  I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space
> but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet.
>
> I see NASA promoting W&L theory and I see you tearing down the W&L theory
> and appear soundly in the fusion camp.  I see Krivit discrediting cold
> fusion.  I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism.  W&L promotes beta
> decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways.  Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin
> and q-pulse lattice rattling.
>
> Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question).
>
>
> I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is
> quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic
> hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up
> as HEAT.  The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based
> on a Planck length.  Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that
> is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP?  Maybe the singularity carries a
> charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its
> way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice
> cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table,
> amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat
> engine.  Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create
> these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat
> and extra strain within the lattice?  No Coulomb barrier to worry about
> penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an
> extremely small target/horizon and there they go.
>
> Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine.
>
> LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might
> create and said they would just evaporate quickly.  No explosions, just
> maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF!  Gone.  Once they are gone NO MORE
> HEAT effect.  Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF.  Since the
> event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also
> hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes.  Only way I can
> explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or
> so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory.
>  Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities
> are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains "heat after death"  which
> would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate?
>  It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme
> point sources of high 

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Axil Axil]

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z0IPWmm7GDc

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4sc&feature=player_detailpage

My theory explains this anomaly through the teleportation of entangled
particles and their decoherence when they come into contact with the copper
lattice of the copper coil. The decoherence of the delocalized particles
causes extra dimensional heat transport transportation from inside the
reaction chamber.

This also happens in the Rossi reactor to thermalize gamma radiation.
Test your theory by explaining this anomaly. By the way, you can see this
anomaly first hand and experiment with it by buying the $350 kit.

That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize.

Cheers:   Axil


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote:

> Abd,
>
> First off,  thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with
> words.
>
> We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience.
>
> I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years
> and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems.  The bulk of my
> projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large
> concentrated solar thermal project.  I am currently working on a Natural
> Gas mid-stream storage & supply system.  I have to deal with alot of real
> world problems to make systems in the field perform.  Not all do.
>  Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects
> all work.
>
> When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring
> to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat
> gains.  I also see a wide range of radiation emissions  claimed from
> nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire)
>  I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both
> of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor
> which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to
> market.  I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space
> but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet.
>
> I see NASA promoting W&L theory and I see you tearing down the W&L theory
> and appear soundly in the fusion camp.  I see Krivit discrediting cold
> fusion.  I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism.  W&L promotes beta
> decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways.  Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin
> and q-pulse lattice rattling.
>
> Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question).
>
>
> I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is
> quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic
> hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up
> as HEAT.  The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based
> on a Planck length.  Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that
> is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP?  Maybe the singularity carries a
> charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its
> way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice
> cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table,
> amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat
> engine.  Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create
> these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat
> and extra strain within the lattice?  No Coulomb barrier to worry about
> penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an
> extremely small target/horizon and there they go.
>
> Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine.
>
> LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might
> create and said they would just evaporate quickly.  No explosions, just
> maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF!  Gone.  Once they are gone NO MORE
> HEAT effect.  Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF.  Since the
> event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also
> hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes.  Only way I can
> explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or
> so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory.
>  Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities
> are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains "heat after death"  which
> would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate?
>  It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme
> point sources of high temperature?  What I believe we have here my friend
> is a magnificent quantum singularity heat engine.
>
> This is my grand unification theory of cold fusion.  No wine involved.
>
> I was hoping you could answer all of these questions by morning?...
>
> Godspeed
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>>
>> At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Eng

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

You don't know that.  But even if it was, that still does not solve your 
abiogenesis problem.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Colin Hercus 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability





  On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Abd, I appreciate your comments.

After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several 
times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending.  Please restate your 
contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.

Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple 
hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions.  
I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they 
successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple 
hydrocarbons.  But one thing you need to realize, it never created any 
self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"

The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct 
conditions.  For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of 
hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen.  When the 
experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the 
animo acids just as quickly as it was created.  Hence, the experiment was 
designed on top of faulty assumptions.

  No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis 

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Colin Hercus]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> Abd, I appreciate your comments.
>
> After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several
> times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending.  Please restate
> your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.
>
> Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple
> hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric
> conditions.  I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where
> they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some
> simple hydrocarbons.  But one thing you need to realize, it never created
> any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"
>
> The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct
> conditions.  For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of
> hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen.  When the
> experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed
> the animo acids just as quickly as it was created.  Hence, the experiment
> was designed on top of faulty assumptions.
>
No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis

>
> No one knows how life could have arised from non-life.  Your speculations
> below, while apparently eloquent,  is simply that, speculation.
>  Abiogenesis is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory.
>  Even Richard Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite
> Multiverses so that he can bring the probabilities down to manageable
> numbers to speculate on the first biogenesis.
>
> If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which
> arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you,
> you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new "Darwin".
>
>
> And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible.  The almighty
> creator of everything and the sustainer of everything.  His name is Jesus
> Christ, my savior.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <
> a...@lomaxdesign.com>
> To: ; "Vortex-l" 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
> Improbability
>
>
>  At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
>>
>>  From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation
>>>
>>>  Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution,
>>> Wickramasinghe states:
>>>
>>> We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a
>>> simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup
>>> or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational,
>>> informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and
>>> time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors,
>>> enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors
>>> lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's
>>> the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at
>>> this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking
>>> all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no
>>> way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, evolution would not start with a "simple micro-organism,"
>> that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino
>> acids, can be created without life, thus the "primordial soup." An
>> "organism" is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself,
>> but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus,
>> which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed.
>>
>> So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of
>> catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this
>> enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own
>> structure.
>>
>> When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with
>> copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical
>> processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these
>> variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition*
>> will evolve. It will probably never become uniform.
>>
>> This is quite predictable.
>>
>> Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each
>> other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be "viable," i.e,
>> will also be capable of reproduction.
>>
>> Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full
>> of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own
>> copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable).
>>
>> The really big step is 

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Chemical Engineer]

Quantum singularities are either created in these events or WIMPS awaken
that consume matter and antimatter and can eject antimatter ions   as well
as gammas.  It is not fusion or lenr, it is the evaporation of the
singularity causing this.  W&L theory is wrong

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, wrote:

> Well, here are a couple of old stories identifying some very surprising
> "e=mc^2" phenomena in atmospheric electrical discharges during
> thunderstorms.  Probably not related unless ionized noble gases are
> excellent gamma absorbers, though.
>
> "Weather so severe it generates antimatter"
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/01/weather-so-severe-it-generates-antimatter/
>
> "NASA's Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space"
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
>
> Also, the August edition of Scientific American re-examines this:
>
> "Thunderclouds Make Gamma Rays—and Shoot Out Antimatter, Too"
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thunderclouds-make-gamma-rays-shout-out-matter
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Chemical Engineer wrote:
> > Axil,
> >
> > I believe that light is from a quantum singularity evaporating while
> > feeding off your rydberg matter.  A perfect e=mc2 engine.  See my grand
> > unification theory of cold fusion just posted.
> >
> > On Monday, August 6, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
> >
> >> The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Joseph Papp: Papp Engine
> >> Footage<
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7wZqDQ7Pjg>
> >>
> >>
> >>  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
> >> narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
> >>
> >>
> >>  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
> >> the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
> >> maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination
> >> has
> >> maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to
> >> electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a
> >> dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear
> >> generator
> >> concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid
> >> system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production
> >> approach..
> >>
> >>
> >>  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
> >> or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
> >> stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to
> >> start
> >> of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very
> >> limited
> >> high process heat specialty industrial market.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Papp Piston
> >> Test >
> >>
> >>
> >>  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the
> >> papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
> >> transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
> >> formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
> >> that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
> >> fusion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers:  Axil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,
> >>  >> 'pagnu...@htdconnect.com ');>
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Axil,
> >>
> >> I am not acquainted with this engine.
> >>
> >> You wrote -
> >>
> >> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> >> elasticity."
> >>
> >> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
> >>
> >> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
> >>
> >> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
> >> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
> >> phenomenon can be observed better?
> >>
> >> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
> >> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
> >>
> >> -- Lou Pagnucco
> >>
> >> Axil^2 wrote:
> >> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
> >> >
> >> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> >> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
> >> >
> >> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> >> > xenon)
> >> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> >> > discharge
> >> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
> >> >
> >> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> >> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
> >> After
> >> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
> >> and
> >> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
> >> >
> >> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
> >> 

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Eric Walker]

Le Aug 6, 2012 à 7:00 PM, Axil Axil  a écrit :
> The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp 
> engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the transparent 
> cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the formation of Rydberg 
> mater with mediates the intense electron shielding that reduces the coulomb 
> barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion.

Axil, your sense of humor is very dry.  Many people do not realize you are 
speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The literature is confusing. That's why I recommend . . .

[Chemical Engineer]

Jed,

Thanks, I have read Ed's guide and found it very easy to understand and
very informative.  He mentions there is only one pathway (other than
fission) to release that level of energy - Fusion, while I believe there is
another which better explains the phenomenon seen across the board - the
evaporation of quantum singularities, nature's perfect heat engine.  The
confusion goes away when you embrace the thought.

In the last years of Einstein's life he studied this.  I know you hate
wilkipedia but here you go:

In physics , there is a *speculative
* notion that if there were a black
hole with
the same mass and charge as an
electron,
it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic
moment 
and Compton
wavelength . This idea
is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein
between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were
treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate
geodesic  motion
as part of general
relativity.[1]

On Monday, August 6, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  'a...@lomaxdesign.com');>> wrote:
>
>
>> CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the
>> literature can be confusing.
>
>
> I agree it is confusing, and this is a problem. That is why on the main
> page and Introduction page I recommend papers such as Storms and McKubre:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
>
> When people from the mass media contact me, I send them to those two, plus
> Barnhart for background:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
>
> (I do not start off by calling them useless, lazy, ignorant gits.)
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[pagnucco]

Well, here are a couple of old stories identifying some very surprising
"e=mc^2" phenomena in atmospheric electrical discharges during
thunderstorms.  Probably not related unless ionized noble gases are
excellent gamma absorbers, though.

"Weather so severe it generates antimatter"
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/01/weather-so-severe-it-generates-antimatter/

"NASA's Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space"
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

Also, the August edition of Scientific American re-examines this:

"Thunderclouds Make Gamma Rays—and Shoot Out Antimatter, Too"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thunderclouds-make-gamma-rays-shout-out-matter

-- Lou Pagnucco

Chemical Engineer wrote:
> Axil,
>
> I believe that light is from a quantum singularity evaporating while
> feeding off your rydberg matter.  A perfect e=mc2 engine.  See my grand
> unification theory of cold fusion just posted.
>
> On Monday, August 6, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
>>
>>
>>  Joseph Papp: Papp Engine
>> Footage
>>
>>
>>  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
>> narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
>>
>>
>>  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
>> the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
>> maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination
>> has
>> maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to
>> electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a
>> dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear
>> generator
>> concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid
>> system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production
>> approach..
>>
>>
>>  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
>> or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
>> stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to
>> start
>> of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very
>> limited
>> high process heat specialty industrial market.
>>
>>
>>
>> Papp Piston
>> Test
>>
>>
>>  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the
>> papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
>> transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
>> formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
>> that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
>> fusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers:  Axil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,
>> > 'pagnu...@htdconnect.com');>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Axil,
>>
>> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>>
>> You wrote -
>>
>> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
>> elasticity."
>>
>> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>>
>> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>>
>> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
>> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>>
>> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
>> phenomenon can be observed better?
>>
>> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
>> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>>
>> -- Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> Axil^2 wrote:
>> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>> >
>> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
>> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>> >
>> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
>> > xenon)
>> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
>> > discharge
>> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>> >
>> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
>> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
>> After
>> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
>> and
>> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
>> >
>> >
>> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>> >
>> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
>> upper
>> > end modifications.
>> >
>> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders,
>> the
>> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower.
>> The
>> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge
>> each
>> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>> >
>> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to
>> representatives
>> > of
>> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
>> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
>> > another 

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Chemical Engineer]

Axil,

I believe that light is from a quantum singularity evaporating while
feeding off your rydberg matter.  A perfect e=mc2 engine.  See my grand
unification theory of cold fusion just posted.

On Monday, August 6, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:

> The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
>
>
>  Joseph Papp: Papp Engine 
> Footage
>
>
>  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
> narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
>
>
>  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
> the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
> maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
> maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to
> electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a
> dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator
> concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid
> system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production
> approach..
>
>
>  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
> or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
> stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
> of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
> high process heat specialty industrial market.
>
>
>
> Papp Piston 
> Test
>
>
>  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the
> papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
> transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
> formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
> that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers:  Axil
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  'cvml', 'pagnu...@htdconnect.com');>
> > wrote:
>
> Axil,
>
> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>
> You wrote -
>
> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> elasticity."
>
> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>
> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>
> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>
> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
> phenomenon can be observed better?
>
> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Axil^2 wrote:
> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
> >
> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
> >
> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> > xenon)
> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> > discharge
> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
> >
> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
> After
> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
> >
> >
> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
> >
> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
> > end modifications.
> >
> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
> >
> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
> > of
> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
> >
> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
> > electrical
> > power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition
> > an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of
> > the
> > Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters
> > which provide the energy to expand the gases.
> >
> > The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
> > 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
> > Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
> > Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful
> Work
> > from the Fuel.
> >
> > There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
> > to keep recyc

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Chemical Engineer]

Abd,

First off,  thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words.

We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience.

I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years
and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems.  The bulk of my
projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large
concentrated solar thermal project.  I am currently working on a Natural
Gas mid-stream storage & supply system.  I have to deal with alot of real
world problems to make systems in the field perform.  Not all do.
 Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects
all work.

When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring
to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat
gains.  I also see a wide range of radiation emissions  claimed from
nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire)
 I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both
of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor
which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to
market.  I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space
but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet.

I see NASA promoting W&L theory and I see you tearing down the W&L theory
and appear soundly in the fusion camp.  I see Krivit discrediting cold
fusion.  I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism.  W&L promotes beta
decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways.  Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin
and q-pulse lattice rattling.

Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question).


I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is
quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic
hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up
as HEAT.  The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based
on a Planck length.  Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that
is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP?  Maybe the singularity carries a
charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its
way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice
cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table,
amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat
engine.  Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create
these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat
and extra strain within the lattice?  No Coulomb barrier to worry about
penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an
extremely small target/horizon and there they go.

Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine.

LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might
create and said they would just evaporate quickly.  No explosions, just
maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF!  Gone.  Once they are gone NO MORE
HEAT effect.  Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF.  Since the
event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also
hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes.  Only way I can
explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or
so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory.
 Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities
are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains "heat after death"  which
would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate?
 It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme
point sources of high temperature?  What I believe we have here my friend
is a magnificent quantum singularity heat engine.

This is my grand unification theory of cold fusion.  No wine involved.

I was hoping you could answer all of these questions by morning?...

Godspeed


On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

>
> At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
>
>> I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing
>> to me what the repeatable results are.  To me the anomalous heat could
>> include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy,
>> Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens
>> farting through a wormhole.
>>
>
> CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the
> literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion in 2009,
> as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of lenr-canr.org)
> on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was fringe science, perhaps
> unreal. But why blacklist the major repository of scientific papers on the
> subject?
>
> I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the
> background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. That
> same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Fey

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Axil Axil]

You saw the engine working with your own eyes and can get a demo kit for
$350. I will be looking for reaction reports about the demo kit on the net.
But I want to believe, and yet it is just too cool to be true.

Cheers:   Axil

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I watched these as well and have to wonder if this is real.  How could a
> system with these characteristics not attract more attention from the auto
> industry?
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: pagnucco 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 10:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
>
>
> Axil,
>
> I watched the videos you referenced.
>
> If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Axil wrote:
> > The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
> >
> >
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7wZqDQ7Pjg
> >
> >
> >  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
> > narration
> > and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
> >
> >
> >  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
> > the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
> > maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
> > maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric
> > power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated
> > generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept
> > plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to
> > realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach..
> >
> >
> >  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
> > or
> > office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
> > stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
> > of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
> > high process heat specialty industrial market.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UNoxQDS3LlU
> >
> >
> >  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp
> > engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
> > transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
> > formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
> > that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
> > fusion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers:  Axil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> Axil,
> >>
> >> I am not acquainted with this engine.
> >>
> >> You wrote -
> >>
> >> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> >> elasticity."
> >>
> >> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
> >>
> >> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
> >>
> >> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
> >> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
> >> phenomenon can be observed better?
> >>
> >> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
> >> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
> >>
> >> -- Lou Pagnucco
> >>
> >> Axil^2 wrote:
> >> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
> >> >
> >> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> >> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
> >> >
> >> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> >> > xenon)
> >> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> >> > discharge
> >> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
> >> >
> >> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> >> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
> >> After
> >> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
> >> and
> >> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
> >> >
> >> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
> >> upper
> >> > end modifications.
> >> >
> >> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders,
> >> the
> >> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower.
> >> The
> >> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge
> >> each
> >> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
> >> >
> >> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to
> >> representatives
> >> > of
> >> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> >> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> >> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> >> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
> >> >
> >> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
>

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[David Roberson]

I watched these as well and have to wonder if this is real.  How could a system 
with these characteristics not attract more attention from the auto industry?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: pagnucco 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine



Axil,

I watched the videos you referenced.

If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Axil wrote:
> The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
>
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7wZqDQ7Pjg
>
>
>  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
> narration
> and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
>
>
>  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
> the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
> maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
> maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric
> power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated
> generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept
> plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to
> realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach..
>
>
>  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
> or
> office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
> stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
> of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
> high process heat specialty industrial market.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UNoxQDS3LlU
>
>
>  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp
> engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
> transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
> formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
> that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
> fusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers:  Axil
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>>
>> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>>
>> You wrote -
>>
>> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
>> elasticity."
>>
>> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>>
>> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>>
>> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
>> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>>
>> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
>> phenomenon can be observed better?
>>
>> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
>> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>>
>> -- Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> Axil^2 wrote:
>> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>> >
>> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
>> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>> >
>> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
>> > xenon)
>> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
>> > discharge
>> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>> >
>> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
>> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
>> After
>> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
>> and
>> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
>> >
>> >
>> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>> >
>> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
>> upper
>> > end modifications.
>> >
>> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders,
>> the
>> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower.
>> The
>> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge
>> each
>> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>> >
>> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to
>> representatives
>> > of
>> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
>> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
>> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
>> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
>> >
>> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
>> > electrical
>> > power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by
>> definition
>> > an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart
>> of
>> > the
>> > Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge
>> clusters
>> > which provide the energy to expand the gases.
>> >
>> > The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
>> > 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431
>> for
>> > Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 fo

Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy

[Axil Axil]

The solution to your frustrations is easy. In six months when the papp
engine is for sale on the market, we all here will contribute a nominal
amount to motivate the purchase of a Papp engine together with its
installation in your car by an auto customizer.

You are rich by your own admission and such things are possible for you.

You can then take Gibbs for a ride and let him make sure there is no gas
tank to be found in your new ride.

After his long drive with you, a time of bonding and joking and good
comradeship, if he still maintains his current position, then you will
certainly know his ulterior motives for who could possibly ignore such a
strong proof of concept.

Be patient, the time of reckoning for Gibbs grows short together with your
ultimate vindication.
Gibbs will then be forced to eat his words along with the many others who
will ride with you, so they all best stay hungry.


Cheers:   Axil




On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but mass media blather causes more
> harm than you might realize. It destroys the credibility of researchers.
> The problem is, professionals often read the mass media account and assume
> it is an accurate report of what the researchers said. Take this latest
> example:
>
> ". . . from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few
> decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy
> than is put into them . . ."
>
> Imagine you are a scientist or an engineer. You know nothing about cold
> fusion. You have not read any papers. You read Gibbs, and you think to
> yourself:
>
> "Those cold fusion 'researchers' must be a gang of idiots. They think that
> getting more energy out than in proves the effect is nuclear?!? What
> amateurs. They must be tin-foil helmeted high-school dropouts."
>
> Mass media articles about technology sometimes have mix-ups such as
> confusing power and energy (watts and watt-hours). An educated reader can
> usually sort this out. She can recreate in her mind what the reporter
> actually heard from the researcher. In this case, we know that Gibbs did
> not hear anything. He made it up! No cold fusion researcher would say: "we
> are getting more out than we are putting in, so we know this is real."
>
> Every article by Gibbs has mistakes like that, as do the ones in the
> Scientific American. Anyone who believes Sci. Am. would surely dismiss cold
> fusion:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294
>
> Needless to say, Wikipedia is a compendium of chaos, confusion, and lies.
> When I last checked a few years ago, every substantive assertion in it was
> incorrect. Most of them are about things like recombination that have been
> circulating endlessly since 1989. Trying to kill these things off is like
> trying to quell "birther" rumors that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
>
> The mass media and Wikipedia is where people go first, these days. People
> who go to these sources to learn about cold fusion will get the impression
> that cold fusion scientists are lunatics. I know I would. That is why mass
> media reports written by ignorant people are worse than no reports at all.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy

[Jojo Jaro]

It's no longer a conspiracy from the right when 70% of Americans feel he should 
present it, andobama himself refuses to release his birth certificate.  I 
talking about the real one, not the photoshoped version he's been parotting to 
gullible people like you and Jed.

Goodness, every American is required to present his real Birth Certificate for 
something as mundane as a Driver's License and yet Bambi thinks he is above the 
law and hides his, and you people think that is normal and give him a pass.  

Looks like you and Jed are more gullible and uninformed than I give you credit 
for.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are 
crazy


  Jojo, are you serious? You seem to adopt only views of the American 
conspiratorial right. You seem to play with the  stereotyped red-neck, those we 
see in films and cartoons.


  2012/8/6 Jojo Jaro 

Jed,

Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii.  If he was, why the fake Birth 
Certificate?  Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long?






  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy

[Daniel Rocha]

Jojo, are you serious? You seem to adopt only views of the
American conspiratorial right. You seem to play with the  stereotyped
red-neck, those we see in films and cartoons.

2012/8/6 Jojo Jaro 

> **
> Jed,
>
> Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii.  If he was, why the fake Birth
> Certificate?  Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long?
>
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy

[Jojo Jaro]

Jed,

Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii.  If he was, why the fake Birth 
Certificate?  Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long?

Once again, I find myself having to correct your misinformation.  You like 
taking pot shots and insult those you disagree with, using these one liners.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:23 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy


  Trying to kill these things off is like trying to quell "birther" rumors that 
Obama was not born in Hawaii.



  - Jed

[Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy

[Jed Rothwell]

I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but mass media blather causes more harm
than you might realize. It destroys the credibility of researchers. The
problem is, professionals often read the mass media account and assume it
is an accurate report of what the researchers said. Take this latest
example:

". . . from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few
decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy
than is put into them . . ."

Imagine you are a scientist or an engineer. You know nothing about cold
fusion. You have not read any papers. You read Gibbs, and you think to
yourself:

"Those cold fusion 'researchers' must be a gang of idiots. They think that
getting more energy out than in proves the effect is nuclear?!? What
amateurs. They must be tin-foil helmeted high-school dropouts."

Mass media articles about technology sometimes have mix-ups such as
confusing power and energy (watts and watt-hours). An educated reader can
usually sort this out. She can recreate in her mind what the reporter
actually heard from the researcher. In this case, we know that Gibbs did
not hear anything. He made it up! No cold fusion researcher would say: "we
are getting more out than we are putting in, so we know this is real."

Every article by Gibbs has mistakes like that, as do the ones in the
Scientific American. Anyone who believes Sci. Am. would surely dismiss cold
fusion:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294

Needless to say, Wikipedia is a compendium of chaos, confusion, and lies.
When I last checked a few years ago, every substantive assertion in it was
incorrect. Most of them are about things like recombination that have been
circulating endlessly since 1989. Trying to kill these things off is like
trying to quell "birther" rumors that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

The mass media and Wikipedia is where people go first, these days. People
who go to these sources to learn about cold fusion will get the impression
that cold fusion scientists are lunatics. I know I would. That is why mass
media reports written by ignorant people are worse than no reports at all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[pagnucco]

Axil,

I watched the videos you referenced.

If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Axil wrote:
> The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
>
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7wZqDQ7Pjg
>
>
>  This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
> narration
> and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
>
>
>  A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
> the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
> maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
> maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric
> power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated
> generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept
> plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to
> realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach..
>
>
>  This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
> or
> office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
> stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
> of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
> high process heat specialty industrial market.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UNoxQDS3LlU
>
>
>  The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp
> engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
> transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
> formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
> that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
> fusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers:  Axil
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>>
>> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>>
>> You wrote -
>>
>> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
>> elasticity."
>>
>> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>>
>> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>>
>> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
>> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>>
>> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
>> phenomenon can be observed better?
>>
>> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
>> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>>
>> -- Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> Axil^2 wrote:
>> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>> >
>> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
>> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>> >
>> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
>> > xenon)
>> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
>> > discharge
>> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>> >
>> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
>> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
>> After
>> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
>> and
>> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
>> >
>> >
>> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>> >
>> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
>> upper
>> > end modifications.
>> >
>> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders,
>> the
>> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower.
>> The
>> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge
>> each
>> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>> >
>> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to
>> representatives
>> > of
>> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
>> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
>> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
>> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
>> >
>> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
>> > electrical
>> > power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by
>> definition
>> > an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart
>> of
>> > the
>> > Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge
>> clusters
>> > which provide the energy to expand the gases.
>> >
>> > The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
>> > 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431
>> for
>> > Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for
>> Inert
>> > Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful
>> Work
>> > from the Fuel.
>> >
>> > There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It
>> seems
>> > to keep recycling through the new energy community.
>> >
>> > Jim Kettner has incorporated a co

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Axil Axil]

The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=L7wZqDQ7Pjg


 This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with narration
and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.


 A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric
power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated
generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept
plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to
realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach..


 This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home or
office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
high process heat specialty industrial market.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UNoxQDS3LlU


 The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp
engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion.



Cheers:  Axil





On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>
> You wrote -
>
> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> elasticity."
>
> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>
> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>
> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>
> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
> phenomenon can be observed better?
>
> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Axil^2 wrote:
> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
> >
> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
> >
> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> > xenon)
> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> > discharge
> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
> >
> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
> After
> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
> >
> >
> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
> >
> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
> > end modifications.
> >
> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
> >
> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
> > of
> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
> >
> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
> > electrical
> > power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition
> > an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of
> > the
> > Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters
> > which provide the energy to expand the gases.
> >
> > The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
> > 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
> > Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
> > Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful
> Work
> > from the Fuel.
> >
> > There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
> > to keep recycling through the new energy community.
> >
> > Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
> > simply
> > and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass
> > production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money
> > back
> > guaranty”.
> >
> > It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron
> screening
> > LERN principles as the R

[Vo]:The literature is confusing. That's why I recommend . . .

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the
> literature can be confusing.


I agree it is confusing, and this is a problem. That is why on the main
page and Introduction page I recommend papers such as Storms and McKubre:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

When people from the mass media contact me, I send them to those two, plus
Barnhart for background:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

(I do not start off by calling them useless, lazy, ignorant gits.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote:
I have been following for a year and half but it is still very 
confusing to me what the repeatable results are.  To me the 
anomalous heat could include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, 
CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, 
fusion, beta decays to aliens farting through a wormhole.


CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, 
the literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion 
in 2009, as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of 
lenr-canr.org) on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was 
fringe science, perhaps unreal. But why blacklist the major 
repository of scientific papers on the subject?


I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the 
background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. 
That same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Feynman, 
had led me, as well, to know that experiment was King. That if 
experiment showed that, say, Newton's Laws of Motion were wrong, we'd 
better be ready re-examine the Laws (not just the experiment!). I 
knew from Feynman that we did not have the math to analyze the solid 
state, it was way too complex. Still, the lack of progress in the 
field (as I imagined from the lack of press coverage of progress), 
had led me to think (from 1990 or so) that cold fusion was a dud.


Intrigued by what I found, I bought most of the major books on the 
topic, including the skeptical ones, i.e, Huizenga, Taubes, Park, 
etc. I bought Storms, Beaudette, Mizuno, and a figure in the field 
was kind enough to donate a copy of the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook to me.


And I noticed something. Early on I figured out that the matter had 
actually been iced, as to the reality of cold fusion, when Miles 
found a correlation between the anomalous heat found so erratically 
in palladium deuteride, and helium produced. I.e., the amount of heat 
might be erratic, but then, regardless, helium was found in the 
evolved gases at a particular ratio to the heat, consistent with a 
hypothesis that the heat was the result of some kind of fusion 
process, fusing deuterium to helium, with some of the helium 
remaining trapped at least temporarily. *Rougly* half is released, 
under that hypothesis.


This was very strong evidence that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect 
(FPHE) is nuclear in nature, and is very likely some kind of fusion.


Huizenga noticed this in the second edition of his book. Good thing I 
bought that edition! He wrote that, if confirmed, this would solve a 
major mystery of cold fusion, i.e., the ash. Before that, there was 
total uncertainty about the ash, and it didn't seem there was one. 
Some early efforts to find helium had looked in the palladium rod. 
It's not found there, except for very near the surface, and they had 
taken off the surface to avoid contamination from ambient helium! -- 
As I recall. One of Fleischmann's errors, God rest his soul, was a 
belief that the reaction was taking place in the lattice, in the 
bulk. I can understand why he thought that, but ... it wasn't so.


Huizenga expected that the result would not be confirmed. But it was. 
There is actually no contrary experimental evidence, and plenty of 
confirmation. If the field were being treated normally, the issue 
would long ago have been considered resolved.


What I noticed, however, was that heat/helium wasn't emphasized in 
the reviews and articles in the field *from those who accept the 
reality of LENR.* I suspect that this may be that most were already 
convinced by the calorimetry, and the level of pseudoskepticism 
involved in the massive rejection of calorimetry as evidence was 
indeed enormous and frustrating. Beaudette covers this very well.


Chemical Engineer, if you want a repeatable result, you would do this:

Set up and run a series of cells, as many as possible, using a 
protocol known to *occasionally* produce excess heat, use the state 
of the art for the electrolysis and calorimetry. Measure helium in 
the evolved gas (or sample it from the cell if it's a closed cell; 
for this purpose, though, it's a bit more efficient to use an open 
cell, because the helium will then reflect the recent history of the 
cell and you can take more and more meaningful samples from the cell. 
But it's also worth considering using closed cells and thus measuring 
total accumulated helium. You'll have to compensate for slow leakage 
of helium out of the cells, if they are glass. Helium can leak through glass.)


Measure the helium blind, whoever is running the analysis should not 
know the history of the cell from which it came. Sample from all 
cells the same, whether or not they show heat.


Compare the excess energy, determined from calorimetry, with the 
helium measurements, extrapolated back to evolution rates using 
methods you work out in advance.


Something like this has been done many times. The resu

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

Oh, I wished Bill would move from this retrograde Mailing System.  It is 
such a pain to respond with this system.


Anyways, my counter point is below:



The problem is that the paper assumes errors. Garbage in, garbage out. 
Jojo, I've been watching this. You have swallowed a pile of highly 
defective argument.




Be specific, what garbage in and what garbage out.





There is a lost consideration. Take a random combination of five letters. 
Not just any combination will form a functional word. However, there are 
many combinations that would form a word. There is an assumption here that 
the mutations to form a particular word must occur simultaneously. That's 
completely bogus.




Ah, you are using what I would call the "non-specificity" argument.  That 
is, a random combination would create other words other than words that are 
useful.  In other words, you are claiming that other combinations could 
conceivably result in life, just not the life we know.


A random word combination like "Science" is a word and you are arguing that 
a different random word "kejsll" is also a word in some other context and 
would also be useful.  Hence, you are arguing that ANY random combination 
would work and would result in the creation of useful animo acids for life. 
We just happen to settle for the 21 animo acids combination that we end up 
with.


This argument is bogus, if this is what you are saying.  the chemical 
processes do not simply work with any combination.  Some combinations are 
chemically inert and useless for reactions.  Some are incompatible with 
others.  That is, they poison each others reactions.  Some have a wrong 
chirality, hence would not combine properly with the useful amino acids. 
Hence, your assertion that other combinations would also work is faulty.



Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene 
replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 
68; Wysong, 272.


This would vary greatly with environment and the particular organism.

 Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the 
same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every 
ten cells.


A "mutation" is a process. So what is being said is that there would be 
one mutation per ten cell replications.


Just note: the first living things, under most understandings, would 
certainly not be a "single-celled organism." It would be a 
self-replicating molecule, an enzyme that catalyzes its own production. It 
would not be something we would recognize as living. We don't recognize 
DNA as living, rather DNA can catalyze the assembly of elements that 
create something we recognize as living, but stripping this down to 
basics, the simplest element is something that reproduces itself, given 
the appropriate environment. DNA as we know it is probably far more 
complex than the original self-replicating molecule.




Once again, tell us what this self-replicating simple molecule is.  Simply 
speculating that this is true does not make it true.



 Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66),


I don't trust this figure. What research is it based upon? (No, I'm not 
looking it up today.) Note, again, this does not refer to changes. 
Further, the definition of mutation used in the original claim about once 
in every 100,000 gene replications may be different. If a mutation 
requires an expressed difference, what kind of difference?




The paper where the research is sourced is in the References.  In fact, the 
author is telling you specifically where, in Davis, 66.



I don't know what "harmful" means. Does it mean that any cell with that 
specific mutation will not function?


Goodness, you have a penchant for long essays to obfuscate.  Harmful means 
it causes harm to the cell, either by disrupting its normal functions or 
creating conditions that would stop its normal processes.  It is toxic, a 
poison, a disruption.  I do not see the point of this contention other than 
to obfuscate.




 there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 
such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a 
particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). 
Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of 
them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific 
gene.


The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five 
specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate 
probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 
108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) 
bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), 
the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was 
needed!


There is a total imprecision of definition here. The claim of five genes 
needing to be changed simultaneously is highly suspect. T

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

Abd, I appreciate your comments.

After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several 
times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending.  Please restate your 
contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand.


Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple 
hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric 
conditions.  I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where 
they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some 
simple hydrocarbons.  But one thing you need to realize, it never created 
any self-replicating molecules, it never create any "life"


The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct 
conditions.  For one, it was performed on a "Reducing" Atmosphere of 
hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen.  When the 
experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed 
the animo acids just as quickly as it was created.  Hence, the experiment 
was designed on top of faulty assumptions.


No one knows how life could have arised from non-life.  Your speculations 
below, while apparently eloquent,  is simply that, speculation.  Abiogenesis 
is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory.  Even Richard 
Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite Multiverses so that 
he can bring the probabilities down to manageable numbers to speculate on 
the first biogenesis.


If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which 
arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you, 
you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new "Darwin".



And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible.  The almighty 
creator of everything and the sustainer of everything.  His name is Jesus 
Christ, my savior.



Jojo





- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; "Vortex-l" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic 
Improbability




At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:


From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation

 Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by 
permission.


Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, 
Wickramasinghe states:


We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a 
simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial 
soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, 
informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and 
time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, 
enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors 
lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's 
the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at 
this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking 
all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no 
way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.


First of all, evolution would not start with a "simple micro-organism," 
that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino 
acids, can be created without life, thus the "primordial soup." An 
"organism" is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, 
but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, 
which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed.


So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of 
catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this 
enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own 
structure.


When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with copies 
being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical 
processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these 
variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* 
will evolve. It will probably never become uniform.


This is quite predictable.

Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each 
other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be "viable," i.e, 
will also be capable of reproduction.


Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full 
of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own 
copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable).


The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its 
environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. 
When it also organizes metabolic and protective structures, or the enzymes 
that create them. This would be the point where it begins to code life.


Further, a variation may arise that efficiently cannibalizes e

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

>
> Here's an article from The Salt Lake Tribune:
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/**news/54640856-78/fleischmann-**
> fusion-cold-pons.html.csp


Yikes. That one is depressing.

The article is depressing and so are the stupid comments below it.

Steve Krivit, bless his heart, apparently thinks . . . well I am not sure
WHAT he thinks. He wrote:

"Remember that the early discoverers of fission did not immediately
understand why certain materials were producing heat with apparently no
loss in mass."

We'll do our best to remember! Maybe he thinks:

They discovered special relativity before radioactivity.

It is possible to measure the lost mass from nuclear reactions. (Nope. Too
small to detect)

Energetic chemical reactions cause lost mass. (Huh? Chemical ash plus CO2
is, of course, heavier than the original mass of C, as chemists discovered
when they first inventoried the products of combustion. There is lost mass
from relativity. The same amount per joule as for nuclear reactions.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-08-04 22:36, Daniel Rocha wrote:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/04/fleischmann-dead-at-85-end-of-an-era/


Here's an article from The Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54640856-78/fleischmann-fusion-cold-pons.html.csp

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:


From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation

 Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, 
used by permission.


Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, 
Wickramasinghe states:


We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with 
a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, 
primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single 
organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this 
sequentially time and time again, the question is does that 
accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do 
these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of 
living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual 
formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at this quite 
systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all 
the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is 
no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.


First of all, evolution would not start with a "simple 
micro-organism," that's way too complex. We do know that the building 
blocks of life, amino acids, can be created without life, thus the 
"primordial soup." An "organism" is already a complex structure that 
not only reproduces itself, but protects itself and metabolizes 
materials. Closer would be a virus, which is already, as well, too 
complex, as far as any viruses observed.


So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of 
catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but 
this enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other 
than its own structure.


When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with 
copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various 
chemical processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some 
of these variations will favor survival of the variation, so the 
*soup composition* will evolve. It will probably never become uniform.


This is quite predictable.

Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to 
each other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be 
"viable," i.e, will also be capable of reproduction.


Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become 
full of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing 
their own copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable).


The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its 
environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of 
itself. When it also organizes metabolic and protective structures, 
or the enzymes that create them. This would be the point where it 
begins to code life.


Further, a variation may arise that efficiently cannibalizes existing 
undefended enzymes, using them to make copies of itself, but possibly 
also incorporating some of their code into its own. This variation 
might become the foundation for all further evolution. But it will 
never come to pass that a single enzyme will exist, totally 
dominating the soup, because this enzyme itself, as it spreads 
through the soup, will vary through copying error.


The quoted analysis above *assumes* that such a process cannot create 
a code for life of present complexity. It assumes a certain number of 
mutations are necessary, and very likely assumes that these mutations 
must take place serially, i.e., one after the other.


It also attempts too much. The early processes and later ones could 
be quite different. Before sexual reproduction, there was genetic 
interchange; and both create combinations that are far more complex 
than single-mutation changes.


Basically, random change (possibly accelerated at certain times and 
places by local conditions that cause increased copying error) is a 
proposal for the *basic* process allowing the evolution of forms 
*that is observed.* As with any scientific theory, one judges it 
compared to alternatives. The alternative of Goddidit is a cop-out, 
simply avoiding looking at *how* God does things. What is the 
alternative mechanism to random change?


I haven't seen any. If you want to believe that God did it, fine, but *how*?

The sun shines, and God made it that way. But how? Pretending that 
"Let there be light" is the full story is refusal to appreciate what 
God has actually done. Don't imagine that he will be grateful that 
you disrespect his creation in favor of your shallow imaginations. 
Indeed anything that blinds you to his wondrous depth is a failure to 
realize the potential of the human.


To my atheist friends, I'll explain that "God" is another name for 
"Nature" or "Reality," for what actually exists, which is beyond our 
descriptions and imaginations. There is a whole conversation on the 
"meaning" of existence, but this is a conversation for another day. 
For today, 

Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1

[David Roberson]

Good job Bab.  I have been attempting to improve my guess as well.  The data is 
available, but fairly well hidden and at the moment, you seem to have a better 
WAG.  Here is how my thoughts line up at this time:

Carbon in Earth's total atmosphere: .8286 x 10 ^ 15 kilograms.  Derived from 
Wikipedia data

Total area of Earth: 510,072,000 square kilometers.  Again from Wiki.

Radiative Forcing due to Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere:  1.46 Watts per square 
meter.  From Wiki.

Total Watts of forcing due to Carbon Dioxide:  510,072,000 square kilometers x 
(1000 meters/kilometer) ^ 2  x 1.46 watts/square meter = 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts 
for CO2 forcing.

Watts per Kilogram of Carbon as forcing agent: 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts/ .8286 x 
10 ^ 15 Kilograms = .8618 watts/kilogram.

Burn anthracite coal and the energy content is: 35,300 kilo joules/kilogram.  
Wiki data.

Number of seconds required to reach one X factor according to my proposal:  
35,300,000 joules/kilogram  /  .8618 joules/second-kilogram = 4.096 x 10 ^ 7 
seconds.

Number of years for X joules:  4.096 x 10 ^ 7 seconds x 1 min/ 60 seconds x 1 
hour/60 min x 1 day/24 hours x 1 year/365 days = 1.2988 years.

So, if I assume that the carbon dioxide half life is 60 years, then the X 
factor becomes:  60 years / 1.2988 years = 46.2.  Fairly close to your estimate 
of 60!  Wiki rough time choice.

It is amazing to think that burning coal results in the effective burning of an 
equal amount every 1.3 years into the future for many years.  Sounds like a new 
definition of life after death.

These numbers are preliminary and might be corrected as I give the concept 
further consideration.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: David L Babcock 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1


  
Dave:
  Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
  I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the  
ratio. I remember calculating the number of square yards of the  earth that 
faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first  time around, and then 
finding that I didn't need to know that.   This was on July 18th. I plead 
fatigue. The article had a LOT of  references, can't be off much. (a rule, 
right? reliability of data  proportional to number of references.)
  
  But the WAG...  I had a vague idea that the time required for the  
earth to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input...  hmm.  
And the slope of change is, er,  hmm.  Well.  Some sort of  intuitive leap 
occurred, and I grasped at 1%.  Maybe because it's  a nice simple number.
  
  Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's  got 
to be out there.
  
  Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held  
originally, think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to  reflect 
sunlight. Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold  can't burn at all.  
Sort of an apples and oranges thing.
  
  Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind,  electronic.
  
  
  
  
  On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:



You have made an interesting WAGBab.  I intend to give it a lot of 
consideration as I try tounderstand your derivation better.  I had 
hoped that the Sunwas far ahead of mankind in this regard, but 
maybe that waswishful thinking.  Perhaps I can still find one of 
thosetickets to Mars before they all get sold out!

 

Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio  to see if 
that is the accepted value?  I hope that you made an  error of a few 
decimal places.

 

I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high  side when I 
look at the problem from another perspective.  Our  test block of coal 
at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon  dioxide that enters the 
atmosphere.  Since this gas only  remains there for between 30 and 90 
years (half life) then it  seems a little bit of a stretch to consider 
that it allows for  heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of 
carbon in  a single year.  Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so.  If my 
 WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6.   
Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number  by 
further investigation.

 

Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help  us?

 

Dave

-Original Message-
  From: David L Babcock 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
  
  

On  8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Rober

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Axil Axil]

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOwmDZX5Zg&feature=relmfu



On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A continuation of the video is at
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkX69BA35_A&feature=player_embedded
>
>
> Axil
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>>
>> In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
>> “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>>
>> A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
>> xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
>> discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>>
>> This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
>> occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After
>> the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
>> density, and the cycle is repeated.
>>
>> After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
>> elasticity. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>>
>> Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
>> end modifications.
>>
>> Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
>> engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
>> inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
>> cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>>
>> Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
>> of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
>> demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
>> another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
>> apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
>>
>> There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
>> electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by
>> definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the
>> heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical
>> charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases.
>>
>> The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
>> 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
>> Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
>> Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work
>> from the Fuel.
>>
>> There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
>> to keep recycling through the new energy community.
>>
>> Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
>> simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for
>> mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money
>> back guaranty”.
>>
>> It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron
>> screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium
>> is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his
>> technology since most of it is in the public domain.
>>
>> Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the
>> experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that
>> gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output
>> is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are
>> provide. The gas is user supplied.
>>
>> If you are interested, see
>>
>>
>> http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/
>>
>> Public domain LENR
>> Fuel mix
>> xenon 8.5
>>
>> krypton 12.5
>>
>> argon 16.9
>>
>> neon 26.3
>>
>> Helium comprise the remainder.
>>  This technology shares most of the features that are currently under
>> development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these
>> similarities in another post.
>> Cheers: Axil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Axil Axil]

A continuation of the video is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkX69BA35_A&feature=player_embedded


Axil

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>
> In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>
> A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>
> This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After
> the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
> density, and the cycle is repeated.
>
> After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> elasticity. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>
> Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
> end modifications.
>
> Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
> engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
> inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
> cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>
> Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
> of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
>
> There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
> electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by
> definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the
> heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical
> charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases.
>
> The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
> 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
> Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
> Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work
> from the Fuel.
>
> There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
> to keep recycling through the new energy community.
>
> Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
> simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for
> mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money
> back guaranty”.
>
> It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening
> LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the
> fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his
> technology since most of it is in the public domain.
>
> Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the
> experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that
> gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output
> is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are
> provide. The gas is user supplied.
>
> If you are interested, see
>
>
> http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/
>
> Public domain LENR
> Fuel mix
> xenon 8.5
>
> krypton 12.5
>
> argon 16.9
>
> neon 26.3
>
> Helium comprise the remainder.
>  This technology shares most of the features that are currently under
> development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these
> similarities in another post.
> Cheers: Axil
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Axil Axil]

*Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"*

The Papp engine produced a brown substance. Kettner believes that neon was
being transmuted. No transmutation information is released about the
Kettner engine.

The Papp engine is primitive and is substantively different in detail
from the  Kettner engine in the same way that a model T is different from a
current car model. I believe that the Kettner engine recharge time of
144,000 miles equivalent is a result of transmuted ash buildup in the noble
gas.

*Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where
the **phenomenon
can be observed better?*
 Since no heat is produced, the engine core can be and has been built out
of clear plastic. I would like to put the core in a cloud chamber to
characterize any particle emissions but the restraining coils keep
eveything inside the core.


Cheers:  Axil




On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> I am not acquainted with this engine.
>
> You wrote -
>
> " After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
> elasticity."
>
> Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"
>
> Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
>
> Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
> If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
>
> Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
> phenomenon can be observed better?
>
> I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
> - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Axil^2 wrote:
> > *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
> >
> > In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> > “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
> >
> > A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> > xenon)
> > fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> > discharge
> > in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
> >
> > This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> > occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
> After
> > the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
> > density, and the cycle is repeated.
> >
> >
> > Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
> >
> > Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
> > end modifications.
> >
> > Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
> > engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
> > inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
> > cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
> >
> > Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
> > of
> > the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> > demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> > another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> > apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
> >
> > There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
> > electrical
> > power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition
> > an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of
> > the
> > Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters
> > which provide the energy to expand the gases.
> >
> > The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
> > 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
> > Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
> > Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful
> Work
> > from the Fuel.
> >
> > There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
> > to keep recycling through the new energy community.
> >
> > Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
> > simply
> > and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass
> > production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money
> > back
> > guaranty”.
> >
> > It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron
> screening
> > LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the
> > fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his
> > technology since most of it is in the public domain.
> >
> > Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the
> > experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds
> > that
> > gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy
> output
> > is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are
> > provide. The gas is user supplied.
> >
> > If you are interested, see
> >
> >
> http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/
> >
> > Public doma

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Chemical Engineer]

Abd,

Great informative post with ego left out unlike others.

On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Jed and Craig,
>>
>> It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention
>> to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think
>> we should write.
>>
>> You complain endlessly about "sloppy journalism" and how the theories of
>> cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the
>> average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses
>> them as "establishment goons" ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was
>> one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for
>> cold fusion!
>>
>> Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
>>
>> [mg]
>>
>
> Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of
> sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit
> from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out.
>
> Yes, "establishment goons" is an ad hominem attack, and silly.
> "Perpetually angry," from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly
> resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right,
> after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy
> as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge.
>
> I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me
> appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You
> have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as
> well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily
> overlooked, it will slide right past most people.
>
> It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion:
>
> 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist.
> 2. It is too unreliable to be practical.
>
> Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the
> evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold
> fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this
> was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and
> confirmed amply.
>
> There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely
> unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream
> peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold
> fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called "cold
> fusion," rather than the less definitive "low energy nuclear reactions."
> That's "Status of cold fusion (2010)," Edmund Storms. There is a preprint
> on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable.
>
> Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S.
> Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it
> with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly
> split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast
> difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers
> thought that it might be real.
>
> There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But "fusion" is a
> term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts
> them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of
> mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That
> signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory
> experimental record. The early "negative replications" *confirm* the
> correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a
> simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with
> palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts
> deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on
> the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size.
>
> It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to
> establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical
> analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many
> different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what
> amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even
> out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat
> Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not
> present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated
> loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it
> does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself
> destroys the reaction sites.
>
> The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells
> according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a
> reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and
> measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of t

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer  wrote:


> I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your
> thoughts.
>

What a great place! I love that that they have a small airfield next to the
historic site.



> I suggest instead of alienating Mark, which you have obviously already
> done, you engage in some meaningful discussion with him.
>

Not possible. He is one of these know-it-alls never willing to do his
homework. I uploaded 1,200 papers he has either not read a single one, or
he does not understand them. I mean for crying out loud! "Various reactions
that output more energy than is put into them . . ." That could describe
anything, chemical or nuclear! It proves nothing and it means nothing. It
isn't even factually right, since there is no energy put into some of them.
It is blather. This is what passes for science journalism these days.



> Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion.
>

This is not show business, in which any news is good news. Better they
should ignore us than publish nonsense based on their own
imaginations. Anyway, scientists and engineers download 6,000 papers a week
from LENR-CANR.org. We don't need the mass media. We have done an end-run
around them.



> I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am
> your conservative concience.
>

My conscience?!? Mine's clear. Mass media reporters can kiss my ass! I
don't care what they say, and I sure don't care what they think of me. Most
of them are useless, lazy, ignorant gits. In the whole history of this
field, I can't think of more than a half dozen who bothered to learn
anything.  The people at "60 Minutes" and a few others. The rest plagiarize
Wikipedia. Most of are like Gary Taubes: they don't even know how
electricity works. They wouldn't understand the papers even if they did try
to read them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of 
Genetic Improbablity.  The article below probably best describes 
this problem of genetic improbability.  The Paper is a well-cited 
paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded 
folks here:


The problem is that the paper assumes errors. Garbage in, garbage 
out. Jojo, I've been watching this. You have swallowed a pile of 
highly defective argument.



From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation

 Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, 
used by permission.


[...]


Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations 
to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the 
time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number 
of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an 
organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five 
mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that 
are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any 
five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single 
organism are astronomical.


There is a lost consideration. Take a random combination of five 
letters. Not just any combination will form a functional word. 
However, there are many combinations that would form a word. There is 
an assumption here that the mutations to form a particular word must 
occur simultaneously. That's completely bogus.


Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 
gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less 
frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272.


This would vary greatly with environment and the particular organism.

 Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, 
the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist 
for every ten cells.


A "mutation" is a process. So what is being said is that there would 
be one mutation per ten cell replications.


Just note: the first living things, under most understandings, would 
certainly not be a "single-celled organism." It would be a 
self-replicating molecule, an enzyme that catalyzes its own 
production. It would not be something we would recognize as living. 
We don't recognize DNA as living, rather DNA can catalyze the 
assembly of elements that create something we recognize as living, 
but stripping this down to basics, the simplest element is something 
that reproduces itself, given the appropriate environment. DNA as we 
know it is probably far more complex than the original 
self-replicating molecule.


I'm not sure what definition of "mutation" is being used here, and 
this could be part of the problem. A change in the nucleotide 
sequence, something other than exact copying, is the simple 
definition. Call them "errors." Not all errors are expressed in the 
organism, and I suspect that "mutation" is being restricted to 
something expressed. It actually causes a change in function.



 Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66),


I don't trust this figure. What research is it based upon? (No, I'm 
not looking it up today.) Note, again, this does not refer to 
changes. Further, the definition of mutation used in the original 
claim about once in every 100,000 gene replications may be different. 
If a mutation requires an expressed difference, what kind of difference?


I don't know what "harmful" means. Does it mean that any cell with 
that specific mutation will not function?


 there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 
10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation 
would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since 
there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 
100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a 
non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.


The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five 
specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their 
separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability 
is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred 
trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion 
years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 
1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!


There is a total imprecision of definition here. The claim of five 
genes needing to be changed simultaneously is highly suspect. There 
is a complete neglect of the vast amount of "junk DNA" present in the 
genome. "Junk DNA" may have been functional at one time, but 
expression was turned off. To turn expression on and off takes, if 
I'm correct, a single mutation.


It's a mess.


[...]
 When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a 
fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically 
absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the 
vast 

Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!]]

[ecat builder]

Hi Reliable,

Do you have any more details about the Bloke who saw the noble gas engine
that purred like a kitten?

John the inventor claims that it runs, even purrs.. He also seems to hint
that it is an over-unity device (recharge your car once a year). And also
says they are building a kit for anyone who wants to build one. All lofty
claims.. but any additional details you can share would be great!

- Brad


   G'Day,
>
>Bloke  witnessed  this  operational  and  said it purred like a kitten.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=2EgT3G6lKno
>
>Warm Regards,
>
>Reliable
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Real satellite photo of Curiosity using parachute!

[Jed Rothwell]

That is astounding. The whole thing is astounding.

I wonder if they planned to have Orbiter there?


Here is the scene at the JPL when the vehicle landed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlo0wHx9bk

Geek heaven!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1

[David L Babcock]

Dave:
Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the ratio. 
I remember calculating the number of square yards of the earth that 
faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first time around, and 
then finding that I didn't need to know that. This was on July 18th. I 
plead fatigue. The article had a LOT of references, can't be off much. 
(a rule, right? reliability of data proportional to number of references.)


But the WAG...  I had a vague idea that the time required for the earth 
to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input... hmm.  And 
the slope of change is, er,  hmm.  Well.  Some sort of intuitive leap 
occurred, and I grasped at 1%.  Maybe because it's a nice simple number.


Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's got to 
be out there.


Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held originally, 
think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to reflect sunlight. 
Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold can't burn at all.  Sort of 
an apples and oranges thing.


Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind, electronic.




On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You have made an interesting WAG Bab.  I intend to give it a lot of 
consideration as I try to understand your derivation better.  I had 
hoped that the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe 
that was wishful thinking.  Perhaps I can still find one of those 
tickets to Mars before they all get sold out!
Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if 
that is the accepted value?  I hope that you made an error of a few 
decimal places.
I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I 
look at the problem from another perspective.  Our test block of coal 
at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the 
atmosphere.  Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90 
years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider 
that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of 
carbon in a single year.  Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so.  If my 
WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows, 
but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further 
investigation.

Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: David L Babcock 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat

On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra 
heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as 
a result of us burning fossil fuels.


In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating 
of X times the initial heat outlay.


I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy 
incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 
2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1.  (I assume this was only the energy 
that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy).


Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2 and methane.  If 
our present rate of warming is caused by (/really /wild guess) 1% more 
retention of solar energy than "before", then that 1% is 60 times more 
than our total energy consumption, for x = 60.  If you diddle in the 
all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different.


Hey, a wild guess is better than none.

So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But 
bloody unlikely.  Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy 
usage, exponential, year after year after year.  Might take us all of 
200 years to get back in trouble.


Ol' Bab.


I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join 
into this discussion.  Do you consider my thought experiment 
completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X 
factor I am suggesting?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Real satellite photo of Curiosity using parachute!

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15978b.html

That is absolutely fascinating.  Thanks!

Looks like we could have Skynet on Mars before Earth.

T

Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[pagnucco]

Axil,

I am not acquainted with this engine.

You wrote -

" After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their 
elasticity."

Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition"

Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?

Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?

Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
phenomenon can be observed better?

I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
- especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Axil^2 wrote:
> *Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
>
> In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
> “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
>
> A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
> xenon)
> fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
> discharge
> in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
>
> This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
> occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After
> the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
> density, and the cycle is repeated.
>
>
> Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
>
> Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
> end modifications.
>
> Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
> engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
> inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
> cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
>
> Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
> of
> the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
> demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
> another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
> apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
>
> There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
> electrical
> power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition
> an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of
> the
> Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters
> which provide the energy to expand the gases.
>
> The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
> 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
> Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
> Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work
> from the Fuel.
>
> There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
> to keep recycling through the new energy community.
>
> Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
> simply
> and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass
> production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money
> back
> guaranty”.
>
> It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening
> LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the
> fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his
> technology since most of it is in the public domain.
>
> Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the
> experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds
> that
> gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output
> is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are
> provide. The gas is user supplied.
>
> If you are interested, see
>
> http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/
>
> Public domain LENR
> Fuel mix
> xenon 8.5
>
> krypton 12.5
>
> argon 16.9
>
> neon 26.3
>
> Helium comprise the remainder.
>  This technology shares most of the features that are currently under
> development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these
> similarities in another post.
> Cheers: Axil
>

RE: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine

[Roarty, Francis X]

Agreed,
This is the same basic process and also related to 
sonoluminescence but totally gaseous medium where the environment forms the 
needed geometry and the catalytic gas through natural self assembly based on 
the nature of the gases with changes in pressure. The gas cyclically reforms 
the geometry in the form of a gaseous meniscus enclosing an ionized plasma 
where like sonoluminescence you don't have to worry about self destruction 
because you are constantly harvesting and reforming the geometry.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:57 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine


Noble Gas Plasma Engine

In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his "Noble 
Gas Plasma Engine".

A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) 
fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in 
this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.

This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. 
Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, 
the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the 
cycle is repeated.

After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. 
Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .

Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end 
modifications.

Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine 
worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor 
claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every 
sixty thousand miles.

Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the 
Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, 
the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was 
injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation 
from his engine.

There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical 
power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an 
electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp 
engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which 
provide the energy to expand the gases.

The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 
4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and 
Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel 
Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel.

There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to 
keep recycling through the new energy community.

Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called "inteligentry, LTD" to simply and 
optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production 
shortly uses the Rossi type "try it before you buy it money back guaranty".

It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN 
principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and 
Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most 
of it is in the public domain.

Kettner's company "inteligentry, LTD," is selling a demo unit to the 
experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas 
based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is 
strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. 
The gas is user supplied.

If you are interested, see

http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/

Public domain LENR
Fuel mix
xenon 8.5

krypton 12.5

argon 16.9

neon 26.3

Helium comprise the remainder.
This technology shares most of the features that are currently under 
development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these 
similarities in another post.
Cheers: Axil

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote:

Jed and Craig,

It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay 
attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write 
*exactly* as you think we should write.


You complain endlessly about "sloppy journalism" and how the 
theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they 
should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon 
(Craig tellingly dismisses them as "establishment goons" ... an ad 
hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry 
at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion!


Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.

[mg]


Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty 
years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, 
yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out.


Yes, "establishment goons" is an ad hominem attack, and silly. 
"Perpetually angry," from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is 
mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's 
people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your 
article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him 
over the edge.


I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me 
appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. 
Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. 
That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy 
journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people.


It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion:

1. Cold fusion doesn't exist.
2. It is too unreliable to be practical.

Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look 
at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior 
commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and 
it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long 
ago discovered, and confirmed amply.


There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely 
unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major 
mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, 
Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came 
out of the closet, being called "cold fusion," rather than the less 
definitive "low energy nuclear reactions." That's "Status of cold 
fusion (2010)," Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org, 
but the abstract alone is remarkable.


Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. 
Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and 
comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position 
(it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively 
established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or 
two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real.


There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But "fusion" is 
a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and 
converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That 
conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount 
of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and 
there is no contradictory experimental record. The early "negative 
replications" *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat 
and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of 
all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an 
unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with 
little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface, 
probably in cracks of a certain size.


It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary 
to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, 
statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can 
turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are 
accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once, 
where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far, 
as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very 
specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure 
palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading 
of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does 
not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself 
destroys the reaction sites.


The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells 
according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured 
with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and 
collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The 
result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat 
correlated with helium production? At what value?


Nobody who has done this has failed to find the correlation. The 
"dead cells" are effectively the controls. The variability

RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat

[Finlay MacNab]

The 6000:1 figure is close to correct.
The cross sectional area of the earth is 127.8 million km^2.  Each km^2 
receives a approximately a gigawatt of solar radiation.  In one hour the earth 
receives 127 thousand terawatt hours of energy.  Which is approximately the 
global consumption of energy in a year.  This is a ratio of around 9000:1.  Or 
an extra 10 seconds of extra sunlight a day.
If one were to multiply this energy by the weight of the atmosphere + the 
weight of the top meter of the earths surface, multiplied by the average heat 
capacity of the total mass, it would be obvious that the heat contribution of 
human activity to global warming attributable to direct heat release is 
insignificant in comparison to the greenhouse effect.


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:21 -0400


You have made an interesting WAG Bab.  I intend to give it a lot of 
consideration as I try to understand your derivation better.  I had hoped that 
the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful 
thinking.  Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they 
all get sold out!

 

Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is 
the accepted value?  I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places.

 

I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at 
the problem from another perspective.  Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram 
turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.  Since this gas 
only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a 
little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped 
equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year.  Off the cuff I would 
guess 10% or so.  If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be 
about 6.  Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by 
further investigation.

 

Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us?

 

Dave





-Original Message-

From: David L Babcock 

To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm

Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat













  

  
  

On
  8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:


  It seems apparent that the
  final global consideration is that extra heat is released into
  the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us
  burning fossil fuels.  





  

In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in
the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay.





I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The
ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all
the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly
6,000 to 1.  (I assume this was only the energy that
involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy).





Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2
and methane.  If our present rate of warming is caused
by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of
solar energy than "before", then that 1% is 60 times
more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60.  If
you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it
won't be much different. 





Hey, a wild guess is better than none.





So if, if, if, all
co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody
unlikely.  Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total
energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. 
Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble.





Ol' Bab.








  


 


I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed
  members join into this discussion.  Do you consider my thought
  experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a
  handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting?


 


Dave

  





  

  


  


  

  


  




  



 




  

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[James Bowery]

The exact quote from Beaudette at 40:50 into the mp3 recording linked below:

"If Pons and Fleischmann would be so cooperative today as to conveniently
die, tomorrow, I suspect, the most prominent critics would say, 'Well,
maybe its time now to give the field a second look.'"

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Charles Beaudette, in his MIT 
> lecturequipped
>  that if Fleischmann and Pons would have the good manners (not sure
> the exact wording) to die, cold fusion research could become respectable.
>
> Note, I am not suggesting that anyone go kill Pons.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>>
>> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/04/fleischmann-dead-at-85-end-of-an-era/
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is
>> bad form.
>>
>

> I don't see Krivits action there as fairly characterized as attempting to
> promote WL theory.


Hey, I was just making a minor kvetch! Overall it was a nice obit.

He can promote the WL theory all he wants. It is his web site. Why not
promote it? What harm?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Daniel, I apologize. As I wrote the message, your contribution was 
indented. That was somehow lost. Looking carefully, I see that the 
quotation marker is missing from your intented material in my 
original copy, and then the indent itself disappears from what 
appeared in Vortex. I'm not sure I understand this. Now providing an 
quoted text marker, here is what I intended to write:


At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory...


He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, 
which is bad form.


Jed used indent, probably a tab, rather than quote level indicator, 
and what I had was simply automatically copied from him (by hitting Reply).


I was, however, somewhat disagreeing with you as well. I don't see 
Krivits action there as fairly characterized as attempting to promote 
WL theory. Just as him saying what was important to him. But I went 
into this in detail in my response.


At 08:01 PM 8/5/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Abd, I didn`t complain about the format. That was Jed`s part. I 
don`t know why his comment is doing beside mine in your quote.


2012/8/5 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory...


He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, 
which is bad form.



I'm going to disagree. If this was the only obituary, okay, bad 
form. But this is Krivit's blog, and he has a story which is 
important to him. If we were to buy that New Energy Times is some 
kind of neutral publication, objectively reporting, it would be a 
problem. But this isn't even a formal NET issue. It's his blog entry.

[etc.]

--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Chemical Engineer]

Jed,

I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your
thoughts.  The only planes flying overhead today are pulling banners
selling Geico insurance.

You are obviously one of the better resources for all scientific documents
and history associated with anomalous heat.  I suggest instead of
alienating Mark, which you have obviously already done, you engage in some
meaningful discussion with him.  To me he at least seemed open to
discussions and his last article was better than his first couple.

Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion.
 Mostly a few bloggers.  Very few even covered Martin's passing, which is
sad.  Hopefully in the near future there will be lots to write about, maybe
not.

I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to
me what the repeatable results are.  To me the anomalous heat could include
anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking
Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting
through a wormhole.

I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am
your conservative concience.

On Monday, August 6, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mark Gibbs  'mgi...@gibbs.com');>> wrote:
>
> I rest my case.
>
>
> That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I
> suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about
> it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about
> the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of
> balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate;
> they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim
> in the peer-reviewed literature.
>
> You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You
> should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I
> think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the
> technical issues. This is a science forum, not a  place to accuse people of
> believing in conspiracy theories.
>
> For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know
> any researchers who do.
>
> Please note the title of this thread is ". . . annoying." I am annoyed.
> Not particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta
> lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me.
> They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry
> at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking,
> two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat,
> or get angry at.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

I rest my case.


That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I
suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about
it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about
the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of
balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate;
they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim
in the peer-reviewed literature.

You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You
should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I
think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the
technical issues. This is a science forum, not a  place to accuse people of
believing in conspiracy theories.

For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know
any researchers who do.

Please note the title of this thread is ". . . annoying." I am annoyed. Not
particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta
lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me.
They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry
at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking,
two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat,
or get angry at.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Curiosity

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> My wife and I stayed up to share in the seven-minutes-of-terror vigil.
> It was 12:30 PM CST when it touched down. It was hart warming to see
> the Curiosity Ground Support crew leap up in absolute pandemonium
> cheering and hugging each other as signal came through confirming the
> fact that the little rover had could had endured the gauntlet. This
> was another badly needed shot in the arm for NASA. I'm pleased as
> punch that all of NASA's team efforts paid off. Hope it paves the way
> for even more ambitious projects in the near future.

Thanks, Steven.  Yeah, NASA TV keeps playing that segment.  One dude
was spouting tears.  Can't say I blame them, tho.  Did you see the
artist sketch comparing Curiosity to Spirit?  I did not realize how
much bigger it was.  Over 1000 lbs.

Martians, be warned.  This puppy is armed with an infrared laser which
can vaporize solid rock; so, don't be muckin' with Curiosity!

T

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts.  The numbers are
> not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get
> confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number
> "Raised" to the other number.
>
> hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000
> 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000
> 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or
> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The post looks fine to me.  The superscripts display correctly.

I am not familiar with hotmail.  Does it support hypertext markup
language?  If so, do you have it enabled?

If it does not, you might consider a gmail account which supports html 5.

T

Re: [Vo]:Curiosity

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

My wife and I stayed up to share in the seven-minutes-of-terror vigil.
It was 12:30 PM CST when it touched down. It was hart warming to see
the Curiosity Ground Support crew leap up in absolute pandemonium
cheering and hugging each other as signal came through confirming the
fact that the little rover had could had endured the gauntlet. This
was another badly needed shot in the arm for NASA. I'm pleased as
punch that all of NASA's team efforts paid off. Hope it paves the way
for even more ambitious projects in the near future.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

Your argument is with evolutionists whose papers are cited in the References of 
this paper.  They are the one who came up with this probabilities.  Don't you 
think they have not considered what you were thinking here?  They have, and 
have come up with these probability numbers.  The numbers do not add up.  Which 
math do you think is wrong?  Be specific and I will address it.  Generalized 
opinions that the math is wrong is not helpful.

Even with 6 billion humans and trillions and trillions of bacteria, the 
mutation rates still do not "compute".  When we are talking of probabilities 
like 10 raised to 300,000; we are talking of a probability beyond all 
conceivable probabilities.  Realize that in statistics, a probability of 10 
raised to 50 is considered "impossible"; and that there are only 10 raised to 
90 atoms in the known Universe.


As for reading scientific papers, I have and I have found them to be faulty.  
That's why I now believe in Intelligent Design.

In the references below, the second reference is co-written by a guy called 
Dean Kenyon.  Dean Kenyon co-authored a book titled "Biological Predestination" 
which was a Darwinian evolution book.  This book presupposes that chemicals 
making up our proteins and DNA have a predisposition to attach in certain ways 
to form the proteins and DNA we find in life forms.  Hence, his theory was that 
physical chemical laws preordained the formation of certain proteins needed for 
life.  All the Darwinian Evolutionists cheered loudly - alas a law that 
predetermines how chemicals would naturally form.  The book quickly became a 
Darwinian Evolutionists' bible.  The book was mandatory required reading for 
every evolutionary biologists, and all college students studying the field.

A decade or so later, Dean Kenyon repudiated his own theory as impossible.  He 
could not explain how proteins formed to assemble into DNA and he can not 
explain how proteins formed without DNA.  Dean Kenyon suffered a serious 
headache case of "Cognitive Dissonance".  He had an intractable "Chicken and 
Egg first" problem.His own theory was a total failure.  Dean Kenyon is now 
an Intelligent Design believer.  But despite the repudiation of the author of 
his theory, this same book is still required reading in college biology 
courses.  Talk about scientific integrity - eh?

This example happens many many many times to scientists who look at the facts 
with an open mind.  Darwinian Evolution is a theory in crisis.  Within the 
field, loud murmurs are occuring as to the shortcomings of Darwinian Evolution 
and Natural Selection paradigm.  You never hear of such murmurs because the 
Darwinian Establishment will never allow that to happen.  The Darwinian 
Cathedral has to be protected at all cost.  Those who as much as hint at the 
possibility of Intelligent Design are "Expelled".  Think that does not happen - 
think again.  Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Required" 
documents these cases.  Check it out at youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg




Jojo

PS.  I welcome a debate with you but I thought you don't want to debate with me 
anymore?




- Original Message - 
  From: Colin Hercus 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability


  Hi Jojo,

  I think you need to rethink your maths, if the earth has been here 4billion 
years (according to science) then what is the chance there is life.

  First if we just have one self replicate molecule, simple DNA or RNa and that 
molecule spreads through the seas then we could have billions of billions of 
tehse self replicate molecules all evolving atthe same time. Many of these will 
be deleterious but you just need one in all the molecules in the sea to get a 
beneficial mutation for hat mutation to become permanent. It's this vast 
multitude of cell divisions and replication errors happening over the whole 
planet that makes it probable.
  Just think there's 6 Billion or so humans on Earth and each one gets about 35 
mutations on each generation. That's a lot of mutation experiments running at 
one time. How many bacteria are there, how many viruses, no wonder we get new 
flus every year or so. That's evolution not a God.
  It's also not true that most mutations have a negative affect, there is 
redundancy in the DNA->RNA->Peptide process hat means many mutations have 
almost no affect. There's also redundancy in gene and promotor networks such 
that we operate more like fuzzy logic washing machines than digital computers.
  As a programmer, one mistyped variable name, semicolon in the wrong spot and 
my program won't compile. A somtaneous abortion. Life and DNA isn't like that, 
it couldn't be evolution wouldn't have worked if it wasn't robust to some level 
of chemical process errors. The whole thing is a miracle but it's a miracle of 
evolution not from design by some mythical be

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Colin Hercus]

Hi Jojo,

I think you need to rethink your maths, if the earth has been here 4billion
years (according to science) then what is the chance there is life.

First if we just have one self replicate molecule, simple DNA or RNa and
that molecule spreads through the seas then we could have billions of
billions of tehse self replicate molecules all evolving atthe same time.
Many of these will be deleterious but you just need one in all the
molecules in the sea to get a beneficial mutation for hat mutation to
become permanent. It's this vast multitude of cell divisions and
replication errors happening over the whole planet that makes it probable.
Just think there's 6 Billion or so humans on Earth and each one gets about
35 mutations on each generation. That's a lot of mutation experiments
running at one time. How many bacteria are there, how many viruses, no
wonder we get new flus every year or so. That's evolution not a God.
It's also not true that most mutations have a negative affect, there is
redundancy in the DNA->RNA->Peptide process hat means many mutations have
almost no affect. There's also redundancy in gene and promotor networks
such that we operate more like fuzzy logic washing machines than digital
computers.
As a programmer, one mistyped variable name, semicolon in the wrong spot
and my program won't compile. A somtaneous abortion. Life and DNA isn't
like that, it couldn't be evolution wouldn't have worked if it wasn't
robust to some level of chemical process errors. The whole thing is a
miracle but it's a miracle of evolution not from design by some mythical
being.

I think you should try studying some papers written by scientists not by
papers written by intelligent design advocates. At least so you see both
sides and can make an intelligent choice.

Colin

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts.  The numbers are
> not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get
> confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number
> "Raised" to the other number.
>
> hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000
> 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000
> 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or
> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> etc.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jojo Jaro 
> *To:* Vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2012 4:18 PM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic
> Improbability
>
>  In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic
> Improbablity.  The article below probably best describes this problem of
> genetic improbability.  The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be
> worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From *The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation*
>
> * *Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used
> by permission.
>
> Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to
> account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time
> available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations
> necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five 
> *(Davis,
> 67-68; Bird, 1:88), *but these five mutations must be the proper type and
> must affect five genes that are functionally related. *Davis, 67-68. *In
> other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this
> occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
>
> Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene
> replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). *Davis,
> 68; Wysong, 272*. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had
> 10,000 genes, the same number as *E. coli* (*Wysong, 113*), one mutation
> would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is
> non-harmful (*Davis, 66*), there would be only one non-harmful mutation
> in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful
> mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since
> there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of
> 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a
> non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
>
> The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five
> specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate
> probabilities. *Morris, 63*. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108X 10
> 8 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014)
> bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017seconds), the 
> resulting population (10
> 31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
>
> But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just
> any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create
> a new structu

Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts.  The numbers are not 
appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get 
confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number 
"Raised" to the other number.

hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000
1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000
1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

etc.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: Vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:18 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability


  In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic 
Improbablity.  The article below probably best describes this problem of 
genetic improbability.  The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of 
sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here:









  From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation

   Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by 
permission.

  Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to 
account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. 
According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to 
produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 
1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five 
genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any 
five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism 
are astronomical.

  Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene 
replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; 
Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, 
the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every 
ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there 
would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. 
The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, 
however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would 
need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to 
possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.

  The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific 
(functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. 
Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 
108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every 
second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) 
would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

  But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any 
kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new 
structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert 
with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining 
non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we 
recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the 
individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the 
development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.

  In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five 
integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, 
or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to 
interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to 
explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations 
alone." Bird, 1:87.

   When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly 
involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that 
random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. 
Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable 
to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 
10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!

  This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific 
fringe. As stated by William Fix:

  Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the 
variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem 
at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by 
hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, 
and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such 
variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same 
conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.

  Renowned French zoologis

[Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability

[Jojo Jaro]

In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic 
Improbablity.  The article below probably best describes this problem of 
genetic improbability.  The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of 
sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here:









>From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation

 Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by 
permission.

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account 
for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. 
According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to 
produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 
1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five 
genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any 
five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism 
are astronomical.

Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene 
replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; 
Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, 
the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every 
ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there 
would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. 
The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, 
however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would 
need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to 
possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific 
(functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. 
Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 
108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every 
second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) 
would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any 
kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new 
structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert 
with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining 
non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we 
recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the 
individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the 
development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.

In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five 
integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, 
or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to 
interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to 
explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations 
alone." Bird, 1:87.

 When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly 
involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that 
random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. 
Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable 
to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 
10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!

This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. 
As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the 
variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem 
at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by 
hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, 
and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such 
variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same 
conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.

Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grass' has made no secret of his 
skepticism:

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? 
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's (Matt, I can't 
get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than 
the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of 
the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function 
that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law 
against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grass', 104.

In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathemati