On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Here's a bigfoot believer making the same argument you make for cold fusion
> (from J Milstone): "The sheer mass of reports alone should point to
> something of substance to the topics and it’s just as loony to believe that
> all the reports, tr
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350427/description/Low-energy_laser_makes_leap_toward_practicality
*Low-energy laser makes leap toward practicality *
Polariton lasers will be driven by electricity not light. This demonstrates
that polaritons can at least produce coherent radiation at
Actually skeptics (correctly called pseudo skeptics) are far worse than
that.
They even disbelieve things that can be explained by establishment dogma.
I have heard that they disbelieved the effects of steroids initially
despite evidence.
And to this day vitamins and minerals are often ignored.
Then do we ban the debunker on the 3rd time? 4th time?
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80212.html
On 5/16/13, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Daniel Rocha
> wrote:
>
> That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are
>> agains
I wrote:
> You are assuming that all hits are false positives. This makes no sense.
>
> There are 17,000 positives (false and real). If, as you say, only 1/3 of
> the tests work, that means there are 34,000 negative tests.
>
This is partly a matter of semantics.
We are defining "false positive"
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are
> against the rules.
>
I think it is ok for someone to fall once or twice into the terrible sin of
debunking. Debunkers are people too, and they can change their ways
Joshua Cude wrote:
> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a
>>> nuclear reaction that fits the claims.
>>>
>>
>> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it
>> is a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent.
>>
>
> Whoa
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Andy Findlay wrote:
> Yes, Terry, but note I was talking about anomalous heat.
Yeah, it was intended as a bit of humor.
Joshua Cude wrote:
> Furthermore, it's easy to imagine experiments that exclude artifacts,
> making them falsifiable.
>
Yes, it is. And all of the mainstream experiments have excluded artifacts.
That is why you and all the other skeptics have never identified a single
artifact in the work of Fl
Joshua Cude wrote:
So if the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and 1/3 of the tries are
> hits, then that is consistent with all the hits being false positives. How
> can you not get that?
>
You are assuming that all hits are false positives. This makes no sense.
There are 17,000 positive
Again:
". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720
times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says
that all of those hits were misreads."
On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote:
> That's what I said: you're calculating the probability for all tries to be
> su
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> Jed: So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the
> likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent
> researchers making mistakes.
> ***That is what I've been saying all along. Note how Joshua Cude just
> gl
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact
>> mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions
>> that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correl
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in
> N tries. It's just wrong.
> ***No, no no. How many times do we need to go through this for a
> skeptopath to acknowledge it? The calculation assumes N tries and N
> hits, and then proceeds to calcu
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf
Garret Moddel at Colorado has a patent application and has been looking for
Casimir/ZPE heating for several years in nanocavities. Success has been
marginal at best.
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2008039176A3?cl=en&dq=Garret+Mod
Fran and Andy, I have always wanted to ask someone who believes in the
Casimir effect why they think the vacuum energy would be blocked by a
thin wall of material. The vacuum energy is proposed to have a very
large frequency, which normally would be expected to pass right
through matter. T
Thanks, Ed.
The implied question in my response to the original post was really
directed more towards the actual process of producing Raney Nickel than
what you can do with it thereafter. The chemical reaction is apparently
strongly exothermic (in and of itself) and progresses faster at highe
Hi Andy,
I heat it with H2 and looked for heat and radiation. I saw nothing
unusual. I did not explore this in depth because I did not expect it
to be active. Nevertheless, it might be active under other conditions
I did not explore. I was more interested in other materials that were
a
Yes, Terry, but note I was talking about anomalous heat.
On 16/05/13 19:12, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Andy Findlay wrote:
I wonder if anyone has looked for anomalous heat in this process.
Whether they look or not, they often find heat considering that the
material
Hi Fran,
Raney Nickel would indeed appear to be perfect territory for Casimir
effects to be taking place. But I'd need some therapeutic maths
counselling to comment sensibly on any relativistic effects.
Andy.
On 16/05/13 19:58, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Also skeletal catalysts like Rayney ni
Also skeletal catalysts like Rayney nickel are an inverse form of Casimir
geometry with pit sizes in the same sweet spot for strong suppression of
virtual particles as casimir plates. This was the first clue that lured me in
to believing these claims regarding powders and skeletal cats like thos
HI Ed,
Yes, I should have mentioned the dangers involved but for some reason or
another I was assuming people would read up on it before trying anything.
I am curious to know, though, whether you were looking at heat during
the production of Raney Nickel, or how it behaves in a Rossi type set
Jed: So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the
likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent
researchers making mistakes.
***That is what I've been saying all along. Note how Joshua Cude just
glides over it. The hallmark of a skeptopath is how disingenuous the
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Andy Findlay wrote:
> I wonder if anyone has looked for anomalous heat in this process.
Whether they look or not, they often find heat considering that the
material is flammable.
I studied Raney Ni and found no evidence for extra heat. The material
is actually an Ni-Al alloy that contains a small fraction of Al. It is
very reactive to oxygen, unreactive to water and unreactive to H2. It
is dangerous to use without care.
Ed Storms
On May 16, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Andy F
> You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes
> problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world
> applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in
Your answer has been reported by the Yahoo! Answers community
Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:26 AM
Hello harvich,
The answer on Yahoo! Answers was reported and deleted by one or more trusted
members of the Answers community:
"Science has yet to recognize that it is not necessary to make astronomical o
Hi Jack,
I had the same idea a couple of years ago. It gets even more interesting
when you realize that the NiAl + NaOH reaction produces Raney Nickel
(google it - it is a nano-porous material) which has very interesting
properties. The reaction effectively pre-loads the Raney Nickel
'metalli
As usual, the skeptopath reads it completely wrong so that he can hold
onto his belief system: I explicitly wrote
" rolled the dice 6*14,720 times " and then the yield.
Joshua Cude is here to sneer and debunk, even when he's completely
proven wrong.
On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Wed, M
Daniel Rocha wrote:
That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are
> against the rules.
>
As Captain Barbossa put it, they are more like guidelines than rules. Cude
is not a pirate, y'see.
Captain Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our
negotiation
I wrote:
> I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a nuclear
>> reaction that fits the claims.
>>
>
> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it
> is a nuclear reaction.
>
To put it another way, the only 'theory' I need is the what engineers call
One of the most difficult jobs that a LENR experimenter is now faced with
is to figure out what reaction products that the LENR reaction will
produce. There are countless combinations and permutations of nuclear
configurations that can results from lowering the coulomb barrier over a
billion NAE si
Joshua Cude wrote:
Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact
> mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the conditions
> that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated.
> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither c
Since either potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide react with aluminum to
produce hydrogen, I wonder if NiAl wire in electrolysis with KOH or NaOH
might prove interesting. Any thoughts?
Perhaps even simpler would be adding this wire to a solution of KOH or NaOH
without electrolysis. I don't kn
You could think of the compression mechanism not as causing fusion
directly, but causing the appearance of akito's symmetric condensate.
2013/5/16 Axil Axil
> There is another compression mechanism that is important in
> Nanoplasmonics. The wavelength of light can be compressed by a factor of 1
There is another compression mechanism that is important in Nanoplasmonics.
The wavelength of light can be compressed by a factor of 10 to the 8th
power by a nanoantenna when a polariton is formed. Mark Stockmen explains
it far better than me in his primer that I referenced up thread.
On Thu, M
Thank you for your reference to Electron Validum. Again, I'm not a physicist
but if this EV phenomena was accepted as empirically true, then 'free energy'
and transmutation follow easily. I don't see how it could be otherwise. It's
concentrated enough to blast thru a Coulomb barrier.
If I mis
Laser light can hardly compress anything in this case. Have you thought
about the wavelength of light of 500nm? A sphere with one node of it can
contain 125 billions of H atoms.
2013/5/16 Axil Axil
> http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/13138/1/thesis.pdf
>
> This experimenter foun
In the Rossi reactor, Polaritons are produced by heating the nickel
micro-particles. Heat is initially required to produce enough polariton
activity to get the LENR reaction going. Because Rossi keeps his reactor
subcritical, heat must be applied periodically to rekindle the LENR
reaction.
Yes,
Courtesy of Coldfusionnow.org
"Responsibly imaginable" LENR solutions from NASA
http://coldfusionnow.org/responsibly-imaginable-lenr-solutions-from-nasa/
Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology
Options The Responsibly Imaginable
Dennis M. Bushnell - Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
Excuse the typo:27.2 * 11= 299.2 eV
... which is an important correction to make - since the 11th ionization
potential of nickel happens to be 299.96 eV which is very close to an ideal
fit for the Mills' catalytic "hole" - a few parts per thousand off.
This fits pretty well with the idea of
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/13138/1/thesis.pdf
This experimenter found not much alpha decay help from high powered lasers
alone.
Sorry, the screening comes from polariton production by laser stimuli of
nano-particles.
In the referenced I sited for you, the dissertation by Co
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> 1 cubic nanometer is an enourmous volume, not a small volume. You'd need
> focusing like at a few fm, 1 million times smaller in scale or 10^18
> smaller in volume.
>
>
Your concept of this process is not yet correct.
No one yet knows how mu
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the
>>> years I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that
>>> takes the cake.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you don't understand what "convers
Joshua Cude wrote:
THAT is one of the strangest assertions I have ever read, in all the years
>> I have been reading strange comments from skeptics. Seriously, that takes
>> the cake.
>>
>
> Maybe you don't understand what "converse" means.
>
Maybe you do not understand what physical causality m
Edmund Storms wrote:
Jed, two different applications of the word random are being applied
> without a clear differentiation. The effect in a particular sample involves
> a random creation of the required conditions. These conditions are not
> controlled, consequently they are present in some samp
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So,
>> it means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the
>> converse, which is what you claim.
>>
>
> Ding ding ding ding di
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> It is not a bit random.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood.
>>
>
> Erratic is not the same as random.
>
Storms on Feb 18:
"My theory predicts that replication will only
That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are
against the rules.
2013/5/16 Jed Rothwell
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Well, it is the 2nd time you give this warning about the rule. Will ban or
>> not Joshua Cude, since he seems the only one to not follow the rule?
>>
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Well, it is the 2nd time you give this warning about the rule. Will ban or
> not Joshua Cude, since he seems the only one to not follow the rule?
>
I do not think he should be banned. He is reasonably polite and he states
his beliefs clearly. Just ignore him or set your e-mai
Jed, two different applications of the word random are being applied
without a clear differentiation. The effect in a particular sample
involves a random creation of the required conditions. These
conditions are not controlled, consequently they are present in some
samples and not present i
Joshua Cude wrote:
> It is not a bit random.
>>
>
>
> Storms calls it erratic, and dependent on luck and nature's mood.
>
Erratic is not the same as random. When computer equipment fails because of
overheating the performance is erratic but the cause is well understood and
not a bit random. You
Joshua Cude wrote:
The figure plots the loading in experiments that showed excess heat. So, it
> means if you see excess heat, the loading is high. It does not show the
> converse, which is what you claim.
>
Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!! You win the Internets!
THAT is one of the strangest as
Patrick Ellul wrote:
To fit 15 persons, it would have to be a minibus.
>
Or a circus clown car. That would not be totally inappropriate.
- Jed
Dan,
Re the energy scale, This is why I think a Zero point phenomena is involved...
a bootstrap mechanism like the MAHG where a reversible reaction is powered by
ZPE to accumulate into the NAE under discussion. Disassociation threshold
discount so large [OU] that it wants to run away but heat s
This process assumes something starts the the nuclear reaction in the
absence of radiation. If the nuclear reactions can be started without
radiation, why would it need radiation to continue. Also, nano-
particles are seldom present in significant amounts. Consequently, I
see no reason why
From: Daniel Rocha
I hope you just noticed that the energy scale at which these
phenomena occur are puny in comparison to what is needed for fusion.
Right you are Daniel - yet this is an interesting
amplification p
". . . very strong isotope effect . . . "
VSIE . . . never seen that term before. Pronounced "vizzy" rhymes
with "fizzy". Beats "leaner" rhymes with "weiner".
Axil,
thanks for the citation re decay acceleration, You are adding support for
relativistic effects in this environment, It does appear that appropriate laser
application multiplies the measured effect, I would posit that it accelerates
the medium transport through the geometry and multiplies
1 cubic nanometer is an enourmous volume, not a small volume. You'd need
focusing like at a few fm, 1 million times smaller in scale or 10^18
smaller in volume.
2013/5/16 Axil Axil
> The negative charge concentration is focused into a volume of just 1 cubic
> nanometer, it is not hot fusion but
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Yes, it is weak compared to the power of a Tokamak reactor, although it
> often produces a lot more energy. (The tokamak record is 6 MJ; the cold
> fusion record for Pd-D is around 150 MJ I think.)
>
>
Not that it makes much difference, but j
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> As I wrote, it represents the probability that ALL of the replications
>>> were the result of error.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications.
>> Look up the binomial d
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other
> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times
> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all
> of those hits were
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy, it is as if someone
> went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720
> hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were
> misreads. The cha
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> You do not need multiple experiments to prove the effect is real. One
>>> good one suffices.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>> One good one that can be performed by anyone, or for anyone.
>>
>
> Oh sure. Just like anyone can build a
Poco anni fa (a few years ago) I have donated a copy of
Ed Storms' book to the Library of this organization via
an Euro-parlamentarian friend, but I don't see a cause-effect
relationship between these two events.
Does those gals and guys come to the June 2 gathering?
End of intellectual hybernatio
On 2013-05-16 05:34, Peter Gluck wrote:
This morning, quite early, Daniele Passerini publishes a mystery list
of 15 persons:
http://22passi.blogspot.ro/2013/05/la-risposta-fa-36213.html
Many of them are well known in our circles.
He says these persons were driving a car for the coming (June 2)
See references:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ
also see
http://www.journ
I've dealt with these types for years. The actual term I prefer to use is
Pseudosceptics - due to the fact that they do not display any of the traits
of true sceptics, but rather that they are opposed to ANYTHING which cannot
be explained by establishment dogma. The term sceptic no longer means w
The negative charge concentration is focused into a volume of just 1 cubic
nanometer, it is not hot fusion but screening of the coulomb barrier and
the polaritons are readily formed into a system wide Bose Einstein
condensate. Look up the term “spaser”. All this helps to lower the coulomb
barrier.
70 matches
Mail list logo
