Re: [Vo]:LENR patent covering nanotubes
What makes this Nanoplasmonic LENR reaction different is the use of carbon nanotubes and more surprising an incoherent light source. The other Nanoplasmonic reaction types similar to this one used gold nanoparticles and laser light. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:09 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof -- US 20130266106 A1 ABSTRACT There is disclosed a method of generating energetic particles, which comprises contacting nanotubes with a source of hydrogen isotopes, such as D2O, and applying activation energy to the nanotubes. In one embodiment, the hydrogen isotopes comprises protium, deuterium, tritium, and combinations thereof. There is also disclosed a method of transmuting matter that is based on the increased likelihood of nuclei interaction for atoms confined in the limited dimensions of a nanotube structure, which generates energetic particles sufficient to transmute matter and exposing matter to be transmuted to these particles. http://www.google.com/patents/US20130266106 Micro-geometries perhaps related to claimed LENR in zeolite nanopores or other material nano-cracks/crevices?
RE: [Vo]:Glow-in-the-dark roads
Put in some tritium lights. Tell the radioactive-phobia types to shut up and go away.
[Vo]:Re: Got a nasty review
The review was genuinely nasty and there is no pleasing someone like this. I did look over the photon comment and reviewed my writing in this section. I changed the coordinate system to spherical and I showed, clearly, that the wavelength in conjunction with the charge of the jumping electron produces the energy of the photon. 1. 094 million meters per second = freq times wavelength Where the frequency equals the frequency of the emitted photon. The wavelength in conjunction with the charge of the jumping electron equals the energy of the photon. I am glad that the nasty review made me rewrite this section. An explanation for the duality of particles and wave is an accomplishment enough. It better be perfect. Things like calling me a lair because I knew Planck s constant reflects only on the reviewer. I will just walk away from the comment stating, This work, like all others, stands of the shoulders of giants. Good can come from adversity. The last time that this happened a reader pointed out that in order achieve a velocity of one million meters per second that the electron must pick up energy. Energy is conserved inertial mass is not. The rewrite now shows that the strong gravitomagnetic field during the quantum jump is associated with the non-conservation of inertial mass. Harsh reviews only make my work better. Stupid rants run off of my back like water on a duck. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; rvargo1062 rvargo1...@yahoo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 26, 2013 9:58 am Subject: Got a nasty review There are some interesting ideas here. I guess it could be possible that he got a couple things right, it is not likely though. It seems to me if cold fusion was really this successful there would be a lot more people working on it. I one thing that is completely obvious to me is that all of the math that this guy does is completely meaningless. He used a series of equations completely out of their context that made relationships that were nonsensical. It is ridiculous to model a photon as a capacitor. Photons have no charge, yes a positive and negative component, but no electrical charge. My feeling that that this book would be a waste of time to read, and that it was written by a liar. I know that he used Planck's constant to find the transitional velocity and not the other way around. If he could show us a way to derive his transitional velocity that did not use Planck's constant I would believe him. Until then please don't waste your time on this nonsense like I did. ..
[Vo]:Re: LENR patent covering nanotubes
Axil Axil wrote: | What makes this Nanoplasmonic LENR reaction different is the use of carbon nanotubes and more surprising an incoherent light source. | | The other Nanoplasmonic reaction types similar to this one used gold nanoparticles and laser light. I don’t find the use of an incoherent light source that surprising. The Coherence Length of a Light Source is inversely proportional to its Bandwidth. A White Light Source with a UV Filter would have a Coherence Length in the vicinity of 0.5 microns or 500 nm; quite adequate when attempting to illuminate quasi-particles on a structure of the order of 10 to 50 nm. This also allows relaxed Energy Matching (coupling) to an excitation such as a Surface Plasmon-Polariton (I’m not pinning the quasi-particle excitation to Surface Plasmons; Carbon Nanotubes have exhibited a rich array of excitations) by illuminating the Nanotubes with Photons of a wide array of energies. For example, see: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/aop/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-49-13-2470 Sorry, I don’t have a more direct link, right now. To efficiently couple to such a quasi-excitation, one must match the energy and momentum of the particular excitation. As noted in the patent, red laser light works but doesn’t give as strong a response, which seems to fit this thinking... ... The heavy water (D2O) tipped at 45 degrees could act as a “prism” and slow down the photons for proper momentum (wave vector) matching to the excitations; rotating ensures proper orientation of many more nanotubes than if it wasn’t rotated... I suspect that in this patent/demonstration, one would have to use the highest power halogen light source available and illuminate the Rotating Glass Beaker for very long periods of time. This might be a very simple experiment to replicate, but take some time. - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR patent covering nanotubes
Mark, I agree with your observation - This might be a very simple experiment to replicate, but take some time. If it's real, it should be much easier to explore the experimental parameter space than with other approaches, and less expensive. Also, broadband incoherent e-m sources might be better at finding resonances and also provide higher amplitudes sporadically. Swept frequency sources and signals like Energetics' Superwave which provides superoscillation amplitudes might be worth trying. - Lou Pagnucco Mark Jurich wrote: I don't find the use of an incoherent light source that surprising. The Coherence Length of a Light Source is inversely proportional to its Bandwidth. A White Light Source with a UV Filter would have a Coherence Length in the vicinity of 0.5 microns or 500 nm; quite adequate when attempting to illuminate quasi-particles on a structure of the order of 10 to 50 nm. This also allows relaxed Energy Matching (coupling) to an excitation such as a Surface Plasmon-Polariton (I'm not pinning the quasi-particle excitation to Surface Plasmons; Carbon Nanotubes have exhibited a rich array of excitations) by illuminating the Nanotubes with Photons of a wide array of energies. For example, see: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/aop/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-49-13-2470 Sorry, I don't have a more direct link, right now. To efficiently couple to such a quasi-excitation, one must match the energy and momentum of the particular excitation. As noted in the patent, red laser light works but doesnât give as strong a response, which seems to fit this thinking... ... The heavy water (D2O) tipped at 45 degrees could act as a âprismâ and slow down the photons for proper momentum (wave vector) matching to the excitations; rotating ensures proper orientation of many more nanotubes than if it wasn't rotated... I suspect that in this patent/demonstration, one would have to use the highest power halogen light source available and illuminate the Rotating Glass Beaker for very long periods of time. This might be a very simple experiment to replicate, but take some time. [...]
[Vo]:Lattice Energy on Mitsubishi/Toyota LENR transmutations
Lattice Energy LLC - Toyota Confirms Mitsubishi Transmutation of Cs to Pr - Oct 31 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-toyota-confirms-mitsubishi-transmutation-of-cs-to-proct-31-2013
[Vo]:The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8508 The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics Anna Samoilenkohttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Samoilenko_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Taha Yasseri http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Yasseri_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 31 Oct 2013) Activity of modern scholarship creates online footprints galore. Along with traditional metrics of research quality, such as citation counts, online images of researchers and institutions increasingly matter in evaluating academic impact, decisions about grant allocation, and promotion. We examined 400 biographical Wikipedia articles on academics from four scientific fields to test if being featured in the world's largest online encyclopedia is correlated with higher academic notability (assessed through citation counts). We found no statistically significant correlation between Wikipedia articles metrics (length, number of edits, number of incoming links from other articles, etc.) and academic notability of the mentioned researchers and also we did not find any evidence that these scientists are necessarily more prolific than the averages in each field. We also examined the coverage of notable scientist sampled from Thomson Reuters list of highly cited researchers in Wikipedia. In each of the examined fields, Wikipedia failed in covering notable scholars properly. Both findings imply that Wikipedia might produce an inaccurate image of academics on the front end of science and by shedding light on how public perception of academic progress is formed, alert that a subjective element might have been introduced into the hitherto structured system of academic evaluation -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
Interesting find Daniel. Most of the time you can only find critiques of Wikipedia bias, etc. on message boards, forums, and so on. Not generally in a researched article. I'll be interested to see if more such articles, more focused on other shortcomings of Wikipedia (politicking, censorship, etc.), will come to light in the future. Regards, John
[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
Wikipedia is okay for some subjects. But as an institution, Wikipedia it is good at handling controversy. Cold fusion is the longest-running and most controversial subject in the history of academic science. (I think by now we can say that.) So, the people in this field do not like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not like us. Here are some thoughtful articles about the problems at Wikipedia: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/02/20/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ I think I mentioned this one before. It shows that Britannica is a lot better than Wikipedia despite what Nature said: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ And here is a hilarious one -- my all-time favorite: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 QUOTE: *But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.* * * That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: Experts are scum. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
[Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
I meant it is NOT good at controversy. Sorry. (Is there a way to edit these messages?) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
One of my primary motives for suggesting Wikipedia as the corpus for theHutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledgehttp://prize.hutter1.net/ was that Kolmogorov compression will have to involve modeling bias -- perhaps even imputing specific authors as being responsible for specific passages. Moreover, it will have to model the specific biases of those authors which will include modeling their psychology. Unfortunately, a billionaire who said he was going to underwrite that prize mysteriously reneged and ceased all communication. It is still probably the best investment any philanthropist could make -- simply on the strength of motivating the advancement of artificial intelligence in the verbal realm. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM, jedrothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I meant it is NOT good at controversy. Sorry. (Is there a way to edit these messages?) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
You can't edit an email once it's been sent out. ;) Wikipedia is the site that everyone loves to hate, and that almost all younger people, including those in the top tier of the journalism industry, love to consult as a starting point to find out about a new topic. It's an unruly democracy/technocracy with an overgrowth of rules, regulations, guidelines, technicalities and useless dogma. As an organization of people collaborating on their own time on a summary of human knowledge, they're gradually tackling problems on a scale that has not seen before. It is quite possible that other collaborative encyclopedia ventures, with a better collaboration model, will come along in the next few years and gradually replace them in the way that search engines and Web sites have come and gone (think Alta Vista, Digg, Yahoo!, AOL, MySpace, etc.). As long as one keeps in mind the need to ignore a lot of what one reads there, it's a fantastic site. I think the researchers who took a look at the site are just saying in researchese what everyone already kind of realizes. Eric On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:21 PM, jedrothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I meant it is NOT good at controversy. Sorry. (Is there a way to edit these messages?) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: The distorted mirror of Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia coverage of academics
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's an unruly democracy/technocracy with an overgrowth of rules, regulations, guidelines, technicalities and useless dogma. As an organization of people collaborating on their own time on a summary of human knowledge, they're gradually tackling problems on a scale that has not seen before. I hate to admit it, but you are right. It is remarkable, and it has done a lot of good. It is quite possible that other collaborative encyclopedia ventures, with a better collaboration model, will come along in the next few years and gradually replace them . . . They should be looking for a better model now, so they can replace themselves. Otherwise they will Sears and someone else will be Wallmart. It is surprising how often incumbent organizations sit on their laurels. - Jed
