Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
"The other problem is that you seem to be trying to "predict" something that has already occurred, " Schrodinger's eCat!
[Vo]:transmutations via 35 Kev electric arcs in H2 gas in 1951 by Ernest J. Sternglass, 1997 book: Lewis Larsen: Rich Murray 2013.07.28
transmutations via 35 Kev electric arcs in H2 gas in 1951 by Ernest J. Sternglass, 1997 book: Lewis Larsen: Rich Murray 2013.07.28 "...old brass X-Ray tube..." [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!! David Ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com via eskimo.com 2:07 PM (6 hours ago) 2013.07.28 to vortex-l Written by Lewis Larsen Lewis Larsen President and CEO Lattice Energy LLC Chicago, IL USA 1-312-861-0115 November 25, 2011 Copyright 2011 Lattice Energy LLC All rights reserved Page 1 Subject: were LENRs observed in the early 1950s? Einstein and Bethe got involved in this saga Dear Readers: You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics. In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that don't somehow fit within some sort of contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results are never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note is combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass' little 1997 book, "Before the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe." The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in which Dr. Sternglass describes some enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University physics department back in the early 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray tube, as well as a subsequent dialogue with Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly inexplicable experimental results. Seven years ago, Sternglass, then in his late 80s, told me over the telephone that (before he had communicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary Hans Bethe had looked over his experimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell understood what was happening in the experimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of neutrons (obviously, ultra low momentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were more akin to what happens in high-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F aqueous electrolytic cells). So, a baffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help PhD candidate Sternglass evaluate his unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from Sternglass' book relates that story. What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass' data and then immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-body collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs). Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951), very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did. Unfortunately, Ernest's bizarre experimental discovery was simply not pursued any further. In the end, Sternglass didn't heed Einstein's (and Bethe's) strong advice to "be stubborn" and publish the deeply anomalous results. Sternglass' experiments were subsequently lost and largely forgotten by other physicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt and Irion at the University of Chicago back in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927. Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of what might be happening in Sternglass' puzzling experiments, died just four years after his interaction with Sternglass on the unexplained neutron fluxes. The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental results were ever mentioned was Sternglass' little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I stumbled across a copy of it in the $2.99 discount section at Border's bookstore and, curious, just for kicks picked it up to read over the weekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I immediately called my theoretical collaborators and said, "You guys won't believe what I just found." They were equally amazed. We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951 Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcoming paper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, after remaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some conceptual closure on Sternglass' long-lost, unpublished experimental results. Full article [ original page images from the book ] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2025LatticeEnergyDoc.pdf Jones Beene 5:55 PM (2 hours ago) 2013.07.28 to vortex-l http://www.scientificethics.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf "A first series of measurements were initiated with Klystron I on July 28, 2006, at 2 p.m." "The test was repeated the afternoon of Augu
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker wrote: "You cannot predict that." > > You can. GLENDOWER I can call spirits from the vasty deep. HOTSPUR Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? (The other problem is that you seem to be trying to "predict" something that has already occurred, but perhaps I misunderstand.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
"You cannot predict that." You can.
[Vo]:Info for Luca Gamberale (CTO Defkalion Europe)
In my opinion, Luca Gamberale is the most credible member of the DGT team (so far). The more I hear from him the better: Anyone with english transcripts to the live stream from their DGT lab in Milan the day before the English one? It was pretty disappointing that he didn't show up for the english demo. He has a PhD of Physics from the University of Milano (if my sources are correct). Here's what I was told what he studied: "Experimental experience in cryogenics, NMR of solids, low-level optical measurements, calorimetry, Tokamak plasma instabilities, HR optical spectroscopy. Monte Carlo QCD Lattice Simulations, hadronic transitions, plasma physics, physics of highly-loaded hydrides, quantum field theory" He was a fellow at the university until 1999. Patent App: (Surprisingly so few, maybe pirelli wasn't big on patents?) https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011079856A1 New Scientist Article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224436.000-from-tyres-to-neutrinos.html Google Scholar (Tricky, a lot of it is University Milano though. Seems likely that it's him) http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=Luca+Gamberale&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= He basically left the University of Milano in 1999, worked at Pirelli (the big tire company) until 2010 but then was off for three years. Not sure why he left Pirelli or what he did during those 3 years.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker wrote: > > To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of > > December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. > > What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? > I mean only that prediction markets cannot be used to confirm or deny assertions about scientific or engineering, such as whether airplanes can exist or not. Prediction markets are the wrong tool for that. They cannot affect physical reality as measured by instruments and photographs. Prediction markets might be a useful way to predict whether the public will believe that a breakthrough exists, or whether it will continue denying the facts. I do not know if these markets are good for that purpose. I do not know enough about them. > I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. > > (Which is what I'm trying to predict. . . . You cannot predict that. You can only judge it by a careful evaluation of the Levi report and by looking at others who have produced Ni-H cold fusion. "Predicting" is the wrong word in any case. A prediction applies to the future. Rossi's experiments have already happened. You are trying to determine whether they proved what he claims. To do that, you must use the tools of science and engineering, not the tools of a prediction market. Or, you might be trying to determine whether other people will believe him at a given date in the future. That is an entirely different matter. People did not believe the Wrights until 1908, but obviously they did actually fly on many occasions between 1903 and 1908. People's beliefs have absolutely no bearing what is true. Beliefs cannot affect reality. It works both ways. If you were betting on the outcome of an election, you would not try to use the laws of thermodynamics, or a manual on calorimetry. You might use a prediction market though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
(Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier) at should be restated as "disrupt the Higgs superconductivity." On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:36 PM, blaze spinnaker wrote: > > To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of > > December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. > > What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? > > And, btw if that's the analogy, are you saying we haven't learned to > do LENR+ yet? That we are at the equivalent of December 17, 1903? > > I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. > > (Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict > whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier) > >
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
> To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of > December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. What does that have to do with the value of prediction markets? And, btw if that's the analogy, are you saying we haven't learned to do LENR+ yet? That we are at the equivalent of December 17, 1903? I thought you believed that Rossi had figured this out years ago. (Which is what I'm trying to predict. I am not trying to predict whether it's possible to quantum tunnel through the Coulomb barrier)
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
I wrote: > No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world > who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the > predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? > To give another dramatic example, suppose at 1:00 pm on the afternoon of December 17, 1903, you were take a poll about whether man can fly. Suppose you asked people to place bets as to whether airplanes exist. Out of the 1.6 billion people in the world alive on that day, at that moment, the only ones who had ANY KNOWLEDGE of that question were Wilbur and Orville Wright and the members of the Kitty Hawk coast guard who had helped them fly that morning. In all the world, there was not another soul who knew the facts or was qualified to address the question. The opinions of other people were worthless. Meaningless. All the money in the world placed in a bet would mean nothing. There was an undeveloped glass plate photograph showing the first flight: http://www.uscg.mil/history/gifs/Kitty_Hawk.jpg That photograph was proof. It overruled all opinions, all money, all textbooks, and the previous 200,000 years of human technology. A thermocouple reading from a cold fusion experiment in 1989 overrules every member of the human race, including every scientist. Once experiments are replicated at high signal to noise ratios, all bets are off. The issue is settled forever. There is no appeal, and it makes no difference how many people disagree, or how many fail to understand calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. The rules of science in such clear-cut cases are objective and the proof is as indisputable as that photograph. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
blaze spinnaker wrote: Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's > how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do > appreciate having this objective measurement. > > Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something > better comes along. > This objective measurement is particularly useful for trying to > determine a reasonable probability of LENR existing. > No, it is not at all useful. In 1989, there were two people in the world who knew about cold fusion: Fleischmann and Pons. What would be the predictive value of asking others whether it is existed? At present, most physicists and other people know nothing about cold fusion. They have not read any papers and they have no idea what is claimed, or what instruments are used. Their opinions are worth nothing. Less than nothing, because they are biased by the nonsense published in the mass media and Wikipedia. I am in favor of capitalism. Money is good for many purposes. But it is utterly useless for this purpose. The only way you make an objective measurement of a scientific claim is by using the scientific method. You have to look at the instruments, the data, and you have to apply the textbook laws of physics and chemistry. There are no other methods, and no shortcuts. Applying the rules of the marketplace to this question is absurd, like trying to referee a tennis game using a C++ language tutorial, or the score of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Different areas of knowledge and life have different sets of rules. You cannot arbitrarily apply one to another. The rules of the marketplace, and the mechanisms of it, do not apply to things like science, art, literature or love. If you cannot decide whether you love someone and should marry, asking other people to judge your emotions or to bet on them would be futile. Money is a good metric for economics. But not all of life is about economics. Some things have nothing remotely to do with it. Science is one of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Craig wrote: I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. > There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power > should have been divided by 5. > > I can't remember where I read this, however. > That would make some sense of the discrepancy if there is a duty cycle. I'm curious what is going into the calculation of the numbers displayed in LabView. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!
http://www.scientificethics.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf -Original Message- From: David ledin Written by Lewis Larsen You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics. In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that don't somehow fit within some sort of contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results are never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note is combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass' little 1997 book, "Before the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe." The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in which Dr. Sternglass describes some enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University physics department back in the early 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray tube, as well as a subsequent dialogue with Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly inexplicable experimental results. Seven years ago, Sternglass, then in his late 80s, told me over the telephone that (before he had communicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary Hans Bethe had looked over his experimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell understood what was happening in the experimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of neutrons (obviously, ultra low momentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were more akin to what happens in high-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F aqueous electrolytic cells). So, a baffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help PhD candidate Sternglass evaluate his unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from Sternglass' book relates that story. What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass' data and then immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-body collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs). Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951), very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did. Unfortunately, Ernest's bizarre experimental discovery was simply not pursued any further. In the end, Sternglass didn't heed Einstein's (and Bethe's) strong advice to "be stubborn" and publish the deeply anomalous results. Sternglass' experiments were subsequently lost and largely forgotten by other physicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt and Irion at the University of Chicago back in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927. Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of what might be happening in Sternglass' puzzling experiments, died just four years after his interaction with Sternglass on the unexplained neutron fluxes. The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental results were ever mentioned was Sternglass' little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I stumbled across a copy of it in the $2.99 discount section at Border's bookstore and, curious, just for kicks picked it up to read over the weekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I immediately called my theoretical collaborators and said, "You guys won't believe what I just found." They were equally amazed. We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951 Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcoming paper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, after remaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some conceptual closure on Sternglass' long-lost, unpublished experimental results. Full article http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2025LatticeEnergyDoc.pdf
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Our entire economic system is based on this thing called money. It's how we value opportunities. I'm not a materialist, but I do appreciate having this objective measurement. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But it'll have to do until something better comes along. This objective measurement is particularly useful for trying to determine a reasonable probability of LENR existing. Why? Because my motivations are perfectly aligned .. I want it to be true, because it'd be a great investment opportunity, but I have to make sure it's true (I must be skeptical) because if it isn't true I will lose out. Who else has such clearly aligned motivations? Get a good group of us, middle our estimates appropriately (perhaps weighted by track record), and our output will be a useful indicator of the likelihood that this is all true. (The problem with Intrade was it wasn't weighted by track record and was open to manipulation by those with more money and desire to see an outcome than need for profit.) Why is this useful? Because it helps planners have some reasonable indication of how to make decisions on policy and planning for the future. On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM, ken deboer wrote: > Re: Bets > > Nicely put, Steven. RIP. > ken > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: >> >> yes, there is market inefficiency due to risk aversion. >> Black swans exist. >> >> D2 >> >> >> >> From: orionwo...@charter.net >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion >> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:09:49 -0500 >> >> >> From "Blaze": >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> > In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I >> > spent about the >> >> > last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets >> > on highly >> >> > improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for >> > profit there were >> >> > incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their >> >> > primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, >> > but was over >> >> > all long on them). >> >> >> >> "Buckets of money." you say. >> >> >> >> It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to >> make "buckets of money" betting on improbable events. (On a related note, >> one of my mutual funds is a "contra" fund. It often seems to do better than >> the average fund.) >> >> >> >> On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity >> markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the >> kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on >> are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into >> will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. >> >> >> >> As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was >> a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all >> the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to >> my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and >> the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for >> immediate "trading", and finally not having timely data in which to make >> proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. >> >> >> >> I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having >> acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It’s not >> for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked >> the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the >> aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders >> manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies >> (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically >> happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up >> transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the >> professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only >> way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to >> naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading >> futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to >> survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new "newbie" >> traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was >> known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. >> >> >> >> In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this >> particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I >> actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I >> then asked myself, what if I had become successful? What would I have then >> been able to put my grave stone? >> >> >> >> STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON >> >> 1952 - 2031 >> >> >> >> HIs contribution
Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion
Re: Bets Nicely put, Steven. RIP. ken On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, DJ Cravens wrote: > yes, there is market inefficiency due to risk aversion. > Black swans exist. > > D2 > > > -- > From: orionwo...@charter.net > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperion > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:09:49 -0500 > > > From "Blaze": > > > > ... > > > > > In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I > spent about the > > > last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets > on highly > > > improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for > profit there were > > > incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their > > > primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, > but was over > > > all long on them). > > > > "Buckets of money." you say. > > > > It's obvious to me that it takes a large and well-integrated skill set to > make "buckets of money" betting on improbable events. (On a related note, > one of my mutual funds is a "contra" fund. It often seems to do better than > the average fund.) > > > > On a related topic, earlier in my life I tried my hand in the commodity > markets. I suspect trading commodities shares many similarities with the > kind of skill set you have acquired. In a sense, the commodities you bet on > are futures. It's anyone's guess whether the types of futures you buy into > will ripen or go sour when it comes time to cash in. > > > > As for me and my commodity trading adventures, I'll grant you that it was > a fun and exciting time for me... while it lasted. Eventually, I lost all > the money I had set aside for this adventure. I'm sure I lost it all due to > my own lack of having acquired a sufficient collection of skill sets, and > the fact that I didn't possess an appropriate psychological propensity for > immediate "trading", and finally not having timely data in which to make > proper assessments on whether to bury or short the commodity. > > > > I did manage to eventually rationalize my financial losses as having > acquired some valuable experiences in the art of trading futures. It’s not > for the faint of heart! Of course, while I paid my tuition fees I flunked > the course. On cannot pass at everything they dabble in. ;-) In the > aftermath I eventually learned that many professional commodity traders > manage to stay in business because there's a constant influx of newbies > (just like me) who come in with the goal of making money. What typically > happens, however, is that the vast majority of these newbies end up > transferring bulk of their bank accounts into the accounts of the > professionals. An irony that did not escape me was the fact that the only > way the professionals tend to stay in business is to constantly sell to > naive newbies a manufactured hope that there is money to be made in trading > futures. In fact, that's how all forms of professional gambling manage to > survive. Granted, an extremely small percentage of brand new "newbie" > traders actually DO end up become good at the skill, but as someone was > known to have sed: A sucker is born every minute. > > > > In the end I think the biggest [moral] lesson I learned completing this > particular course was to ask myself, what kind of a contribution was I > actually making to the world? The more I thought about it, not very much. I > then asked myself, what if I *had* become successful? What would I have > then been able to put my grave stone? > > > > *STEVEN VINCENT JOHNSON* > > 1952 - 2031 > > > > HIs contribution to the world was that > > he made a lot of money extracting it from the wallets of others > > who were also trying to make a lot of money > > attempting to do the same thing to him. > > * * * > > RIP > > > > Just as in the fine art of betting, commodity trading works by profiting > from the losses of others. Inculcating this realization did not set well > with me. In a sense I actually became relieved of the fact that I had lost > money. It meant that I had not profited from the financial losses of > others. I realize this was a rationalization on my part. Nevertheless, my > own "losses" left me with a clearer conscience. > > > > Based on my own memories I will grant you that it probably IS a rush to > realize how smart one must be in order to take money (willing so) from > others, and to be able to do it in a perfectly legal way! The fact is that > a capitalistic economy needs transactional activity of this sort in order > for the markets to remain dynamic and liquid. So... in a sense, THATS, the > "service" traders and betters are contributing to the system. Hey! It's > just money. ...hopefully, YOUR, money, and not mine. Nothing personal! > > > > For some inexplicable reason, I don’t think I personally would feel > comfortable advertising the acquisition of such a skill set on my > gravestone. > > > >
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output > tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size > and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the > COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation > of the spark power is wrong). I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power should have been divided by 5. I can't remember where I read this, however. Craig
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
Why don't people just go look at the electric company's meter? On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > It is obvious that this reading remained stuck at 100 C during a lot of >> time as the power output was being ramped up. I expected this to occur. > > > At first I thought the demonstration was completely copacetic from the > limited amount of video that I watched. But one detail struck me as odd > upon further reflection. The total input reported in LabView (HV+heaters) > was off by kilowatts from what Mats Lewan measured with the ammeter at the > wall, if I remember correctly. (I am not sure whether the ammeter was his > -- it might have been his, or it might have been provided by Defkalion.) > > That presents an awkward situation: > >1. Defkalion do not know how to measure input power, >2. Mats Lewan does not know how to use an ammeter, >3. the ammeter is defective, >4. or something else. > > This discrepancy got me thinking, and as a working hypothesis I'm going > with (4), above, for now. Here is why. In absolute terms, the difference > in input power (whichever way you go) does not invalidate the potential > amazingness of the demo, for the reported output was many kilowatts above > even the adjusted input, so, prima facie, there is something potentially > very promising that was demoed. But there could be secondary reasons to > get the input wrong (HV, specifically). One reason could be related to the > temperature of the substrate. Early on I suspected that spark plugs were > being used in order to get an ion channel. But now I wonder whether they > might not be used instead to obtain rapid and substantial control over the > temperature of the substrate -- to make it very hot, but to be able to > decrease the temperature quickly if necessary. Perhaps spark plugs could > achieve this more easily than Joule heating. If this is the case, there > would be pressure not to advertise to the world that high substrate > temperatures are important to achieving an effect, something that would be > possible to infer from the HV input measurement. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, David Roberson wrote: It is obvious that this reading remained stuck at 100 C during a lot of > time as the power output was being ramped up. I expected this to occur. At first I thought the demonstration was completely copacetic from the limited amount of video that I watched. But one detail struck me as odd upon further reflection. The total input reported in LabView (HV+heaters) was off by kilowatts from what Mats Lewan measured with the ammeter at the wall, if I remember correctly. (I am not sure whether the ammeter was his -- it might have been his, or it might have been provided by Defkalion.) That presents an awkward situation: 1. Defkalion do not know how to measure input power, 2. Mats Lewan does not know how to use an ammeter, 3. the ammeter is defective, 4. or something else. This discrepancy got me thinking, and as a working hypothesis I'm going with (4), above, for now. Here is why. In absolute terms, the difference in input power (whichever way you go) does not invalidate the potential amazingness of the demo, for the reported output was many kilowatts above even the adjusted input, so, prima facie, there is something potentially very promising that was demoed. But there could be secondary reasons to get the input wrong (HV, specifically). One reason could be related to the temperature of the substrate. Early on I suspected that spark plugs were being used in order to get an ion channel. But now I wonder whether they might not be used instead to obtain rapid and substantial control over the temperature of the substrate -- to make it very hot, but to be able to decrease the temperature quickly if necessary. Perhaps spark plugs could achieve this more easily than Joule heating. If this is the case, there would be pressure not to advertise to the world that high substrate temperatures are important to achieving an effect, something that would be possible to infer from the HV input measurement. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big
> From: "David Roberson" > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:02:52 PM > I reviewed the DGT demonstration and had a chance to give it a bit of > serious thought. One observation that I focused upon was the reading > of the output temperature during the hydrogen cycle. It is obvious > that this reading remained stuck at 100 C during a lot of time as > the power output was being ramped up. I expected this to occur. This is entirely consistent with the transition from wet to dry steam --- see http://tinyurl.com/def-1240 -- more evidence that the final output was saturated steam. Has anyone seen a tabulation of the input/output data? I only made a few screen shots near the end of the demo. There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation of the spark power is wrong).
[Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!
Written by Lewis Larsen You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant LENR-related experimental discovery back in 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and forgotten by mainstream physics. In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that don't somehow fit within some sort of contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in many cases such results are never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In that regard, this cover note is combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest Sternglass' little 1997 book, “Before the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe.” The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in which Dr. Sternglass describes some enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University physics department back in the early 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray tube, as well as a subsequent dialogue with Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly inexplicable experimental results. Seven years ago, Sternglass, then in his late 80s, told me over the telephone that (before he had communicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary Hans Bethe had looked over his experimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell understood what was happening in the experimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of neutrons (obviously, ultra low momentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were more akin to what happens in high-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F aqueous electrolytic cells). So, a baffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help PhD candidate Sternglass evaluate his unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from Sternglass' book relates that story. What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply looked at Sternglass' data and then immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve some sort of many-body collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great explanatory power in our theory of LENRs). Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had even at that late stage in his life! At that point (1951), very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects were about. Well, Einstein surely did. Unfortunately, Ernest's bizarre experimental discovery was simply not pursued any further. In the end, Sternglass didn't heed Einstein's (and Bethe's) strong advice to "be stubborn" and publish the deeply anomalous results. Sternglass' experiments were subsequently lost and largely forgotten by other physicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt and Irion at the University of Chicago back in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927. Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of what might be happening in Sternglass' puzzling experiments, died just four years after his interaction with Sternglass on the unexplained neutron fluxes. The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental results were ever mentioned was Sternglass' little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I stumbled across a copy of it in the $2.99 discount section at Border's bookstore and, curious, just for kicks picked it up to read over the weekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I immediately called my theoretical collaborators and said, "You guys won't believe what I just found." They were equally amazed. We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951 Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcoming paper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, after remaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some conceptual closure on Sternglass’ long-lost, unpublished experimental results. Full article http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2025LatticeEnergyDoc.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Silence on Defkalion Demo
> From: "James Bowery" > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 12:05:57 PM > I've looked at: > > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ > > but have been unable to find any comment, by Andrea Rossi (or anyone > else), on the ICCF-18 Defkalion demo. He never// hardly ever comments on the "competition. Last time I recall Defkalion being discussed he "wished them luck". With the new "company" structure he might even have blocked comments.
[Vo]:Rossi Silence on Defkalion Demo
I've looked at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ but have been unable to find any comment, by Andrea Rossi (or anyone else), on the ICCF-18 Defkalion demo.
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
He claims more than just magnetic dust. See transmutation claims in - "Nano Dust Fusion" (table 2) http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf I believe that several other researchers claim similar results in plasmas. I do not know if they, or Egely, are correct, but an independent lab should be able to replicate his results. -- Lou Pagnucco David ledin wrote: > blaze > > Lol you expose him in 10 minute as fraud .but after 2 year flowing > e-cat story i still don't know what to think about e-cat. > > On 7/28/13, blaze spinnaker wrote: >> Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when >> exposed to neodymium magnet. >>[...]
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
Did Egley ever do a chemical test for the presence of iron? The main criticism of his work was that a magnetic test alone is very weak evidence of transmutation. Harry On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM, blaze spinnaker wrote: > Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when > exposed to neodymium magnet. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElTEeucgBic > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, David ledin > wrote: > > > > In this video a modified and controlled magnetron (the device what you > can > > find in your microwave oven) starts up the nuclear fusion. The initial > > materials are coal and lead pencil filling (graphite), the result is > > magnetically reactive iron. The sphere on the video is quartz-glass, the > > substance holding it is for insulation. > > > > The heat generated through the fusion is 1500-1800 degree Celsius > (2700-3200 > > Fahrenheit) and it is the multiple power of the input power. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk > > > > > > This is his website > > > > http://greentechinfo.eu/?q=content/about-george-egely > > > > > > Documentary about him > > > > https://vimeo.com/38731566 > > > > https://vimeo.com/38730884 > > > > https://vimeo.com/38730625 > > > > https://vimeo.com/38728471 > > > > > > Infinite Energy Magazine articles . > > > > > http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf > > > http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1-InfiniteEnergy-article2.pdf > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
Lol following = flowing mobile keyboard typo On 7/28/13, David ledin wrote: > blaze > > Lol you expose him in 10 minute as fraud .but after 2 year flowing > e-cat story i still don't know what to think about e-cat. > > On 7/28/13, blaze spinnaker wrote: >> Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when >> exposed to neodymium magnet. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElTEeucgBic >> >> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, David ledin >> wrote: >>> >>> In this video a modified and controlled magnetron (the device what you >>> can >>> find in your microwave oven) starts up the nuclear fusion. The initial >>> materials are coal and lead pencil filling (graphite), the result is >>> magnetically reactive iron. The sphere on the video is quartz-glass, the >>> substance holding it is for insulation. >>> >>> The heat generated through the fusion is 1500-1800 degree Celsius >>> (2700-3200 >>> Fahrenheit) and it is the multiple power of the input power. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk >>> >>> >>> This is his website >>> >>> http://greentechinfo.eu/?q=content/about-george-egely >>> >>> >>> Documentary about him >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/38731566 >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/38730884 >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/38730625 >>> >>> https://vimeo.com/38728471 >>> >>> >>> Infinite Energy Magazine articles . >>> >>> http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf >>> http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1-InfiniteEnergy-article2.pdf >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
blaze Lol you expose him in 10 minute as fraud .but after 2 year flowing e-cat story i still don't know what to think about e-cat. On 7/28/13, blaze spinnaker wrote: > Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when > exposed to neodymium magnet. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElTEeucgBic > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, David ledin > wrote: >> >> In this video a modified and controlled magnetron (the device what you >> can >> find in your microwave oven) starts up the nuclear fusion. The initial >> materials are coal and lead pencil filling (graphite), the result is >> magnetically reactive iron. The sphere on the video is quartz-glass, the >> substance holding it is for insulation. >> >> The heat generated through the fusion is 1500-1800 degree Celsius >> (2700-3200 >> Fahrenheit) and it is the multiple power of the input power. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk >> >> >> This is his website >> >> http://greentechinfo.eu/?q=content/about-george-egely >> >> >> Documentary about him >> >> https://vimeo.com/38731566 >> >> https://vimeo.com/38730884 >> >> https://vimeo.com/38730625 >> >> https://vimeo.com/38728471 >> >> >> Infinite Energy Magazine articles . >> >> http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf >> http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1-InfiniteEnergy-article2.pdf >> > >
[Vo]:IRH
Jones. Axial cited a paper last week that seemed to imply RM comes first and then gets inverted .. rather nice since I always made the argument that Axial was referencing RM instead of IRM but apparently both are involved or maybe it is specific to location and suppression or lack there of.. Axial kept focusing on the interface instead of the cavity as the energy source..and with recent posts re plasmons I am open to his interpretation but still think it is the translation due to geometry that allows for anomalous energy. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when exposed to neodymium magnet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElTEeucgBic On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 8:04 AM, David ledin wrote: > > In this video a modified and controlled magnetron (the device what you can > find in your microwave oven) starts up the nuclear fusion. The initial > materials are coal and lead pencil filling (graphite), the result is > magnetically reactive iron. The sphere on the video is quartz-glass, the > substance holding it is for insulation. > > The heat generated through the fusion is 1500-1800 degree Celsius (2700-3200 > Fahrenheit) and it is the multiple power of the input power. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk > > > This is his website > > http://greentechinfo.eu/?q=content/about-george-egely > > > Documentary about him > > https://vimeo.com/38731566 > > https://vimeo.com/38730884 > > https://vimeo.com/38730625 > > https://vimeo.com/38728471 > > > Infinite Energy Magazine articles . > > http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf > http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1-InfiniteEnergy-article2.pdf >
[Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
In this video a modified and controlled magnetron (the device what you can find in your microwave oven) starts up the nuclear fusion. The initial materials are coal and lead pencil filling (graphite), the result is magnetically reactive iron. The sphere on the video is quartz-glass, the substance holding it is for insulation. The heat generated through the fusion is 1500-1800 degree Celsius (2700-3200 Fahrenheit) and it is the multiple power of the input power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk This is his website http://greentechinfo.eu/?q=content/about-george-egely Documentary about him https://vimeo.com/38731566 https://vimeo.com/38730884 https://vimeo.com/38730625 https://vimeo.com/38728471 Infinite Energy Magazine articles . http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1-InfiniteEnergy-article2.pdf
RE: [Vo]:coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberg state) inside a supercavity.
-Original Message- From: David ledin Interesting paper coupling processes of pseudo hydrogen atom (Rydberge state) inside a supercavity. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AminiFthestudyof.pdf What value do you find here, David? I could have missed something and, yes, the sound of three of the subtopics - plasmons, supercavities and Rydberg is most alluring. But to me this paper is mildly interesting on the details of trying to incorporate the plasmon state into a small-scale experiment - but otherwise full of fundamental errors and completely under-referenced. The state which is of interest for LENR is more accurately called the Inverted Rydberg state, since it is very dense - whereas the Rydberg state itself is just the opposite. The numerous Miley/Holmlid papers cover this point specifically. We tend to call it IRH for inverted Rydberg hydrogen. The effective density of hydrogen is very high in IRH. Why does the author not cite Holmlid - the expert on IRH? There is no evidence shown of proton capture in this report, nor its known consequences- so why is it even mentioned? Proton capture is net endothermic with nickel and leads to significant radioactivity. The author seems to have no clue. BTW - It is seldom emphasized enough that proton fusion of all elements of higher atomic mass than iron are net endothermic. Typically, the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier is completely ignored (even by Focardi and Piantelli) as if it was irrelevant (another "miracle" required). Some of the other assumptions in this paper are not valid as well. This kind of experiment is apparently what happens when educated researchers from another field try to get involved in LENR without doing their homework on important prior findings. But of course, if we eventually see good data from Amini, suggesting significant proton fusion for net gain, then my apology will be instantly forthcoming. Jones
[Vo]:Strongly magnetized Rydberg atoms and plasmas
There is a scientific group doing research exclusively about Rydberg atoms and plasmas this is their website. Strongly magnetized Rydberg atoms and plasmas. http://www.pks.mpg.de/mpi-doc/pohlgruppe/research/research_hbar/research_hbar.html
