Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party.
Re: [Vo]:Blue moon
Hmm... evidence of cold fusion on Europa ? Now you're getting desperate. What is it..? lanthanide contraction, plasma cavities inside metals, aneutronic fusion with some weird multibody effect to explain lake of gamma rays and neutrons, waxing lyrical about QCD, ad-hoc this ad-hoc that. Really desperate.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
It will make a brilliant centre peice for a museum looking at all the attempts, both successful and unsucessful, to find alternative energy sources. I guess the problem is that we dont yet know which of the two sections of the museum which should put this (and many other current projects) into, although I know where I would put my money on this one. Nigel On 17/12/2013 02:56, a.ashfield wrote: RAR continues to post new photos at their site http://rarenergia.com.br/ I also see they claim to have posted five newspaper adverts in the Gilman IL area saying: The generator is driven by a mechanical system that is fed exclusively from the Earth's gravity. It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world. This mechanical system was conceptualized and created to capture ans use energy contained in the earth's gravity. This system will work anywhere, anytime without pollution or heat. The mechanical movement is continuous and eternal... I can't believe that perpetual motion is possible nor can I believe anyone would build a second machine like this without knowing it worked It's a real puzzle.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Mr. Franks. You retreated from the last thread you started where you stated similar nonsense. You didn't even understand the trivial issues surrounding recombination. Please stop making us expose your ignorance and pseudoscientific critique, its a waste of everyone's time. Regards. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
;-) maybe that is trolling? or is it sincere and full delusion? I don't take video as evidence. Neither Nature or Science editor as evidence. Nor opinion from people who did not look at the subject, which include all critics except a handful of people like Huizenga and Cudes. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. I take lack of evidence when criticizing, bad reasoning, lack of ethical behaviors, acceptance of such anti-scientific behaviors despite claiming support of scientific methods, as evidence of pathological denial. I take theoretical question as secondary, except when it shows pure incompetence and lack of honesty (like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid, or calling CoE violation for nuclear energy). Good experiments have been done with bad theory, while the opposite is not true. Why is that question raising a troll attack, on a list where many more shocking claims (even for me - I'm very mainstream) are made ? is it because the answer have to be fogged by sterile debate? My question was whether Nature/Science similar were caught making claim of rejecting Cold Fusion whatever are the qualities of the paper. Is that question so inconvenient? There is not even a question whether it is a fact... only question is whether it is official, or at least leaked. 2013/12/17 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
[Vo]:New Advisor John Podesta
May be this is good for the future of LENR too? http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/16/the-center-for-american-progress-is-funded-by-big-corporations-and-lobbyists/ http://www.americanprogressaction.org/about/our-supporters/ John Podesta also advocates for disclosure, as far as I know.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Truly bizarre, and I could care less as to its usefulness. . . . could *not* care less . . .
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party. Perhaps you failed to read the rules of this forum when you joined.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree that it is in violation of good ethics as it pertains to the forum rules and should be addressed by a moderator. If he raised genuine questions/concerns and was less blindly antagonistic it would be less of an issue. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party. Perhaps you failed to read the rules of this forum when you joined.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
the good news is that it is not specific to the question whether Science/Nature have stated more or less officially that they will not publish anything around cold fusion. 2013/12/17 Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree that it is in violation of good ethics as it pertains to the forum rules and should be addressed by a moderator. If he raised genuine questions/concerns and was less blindly antagonistic it would be less of an issue. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party. Perhaps you failed to read the rules of this forum when you joined.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. So I do care in that respect. My point is it is novel and inspired enough to be interesting and worth paying attention to no matter what. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Truly bizarre, and I could care less as to its usefulness. . . . could *not* care less . . .
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
*In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. * IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. Franks, look up the associated vortex post dated a few days ago. This is polariton condensation. Polaritons, something else the Franks must learn to moderate his technical ignorance. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Axil Axil: IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. So what has that got to do with cold fusion? http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/42710.wss Foks0904http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Foks0904+.%22 : Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself RAR! RAR! RAR! Or maybe Mahnah mahnah? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQnoredirect=1 It's not easy being green :-) On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. * IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. Franks, look up the associated vortex post dated a few days ago. This is polariton condensation. Polaritons, something else the Franks must learn to moderate his technical ignorance. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
Foks0904 : Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. What has hope got to do with science? Do you believe in mind matter effects and magical thinking? Nature (excuse the pun) just does what it bloody well wants to. CF *is* like RAR where grown ups keep telling them to read the proper literature (or get an education) and some things just **are impossible**. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. So I do care in that respect. My point is it is novel and inspired enough to be interesting and worth paying attention to no matter what. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Truly bizarre, and I could care less as to its usefulness. . . . could *not* care less . . .
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and science produced results. In other cases the hope has (to date) proved to be unfounded. Nigel On 17/12/2013 15:14, John Franks wrote: Foks0904 : Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. What has hope got to do with science? Do you believe in mind matter effects and magical thinking? Nature (excuse the pun) just does what it bloody well wants to. CF *is* like RAR where grown ups keep telling them to read the proper literature (or get an education) and some things just **are impossible**.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
What has hope got to do with science? Your assertion below is incorrect. We know that physical diseases have a biochemical basis, so we are correct to apply the scientific method and *suspect* that greater knowledge and/or a cure will result. This is why people fund the science of cancer research. It is based on the good reputation, good education, legacy of discoveries in the subject. In the case of CF, there is none of this. It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it. You're on the same level as the RAR people, though with a little more knowledge of science but it's all ad-hoc and you attempt to blind people with science on things like BECs, lanthanide contractions, relativistic effects on f-shells, plasmids because it sounds flash and like I said, you are playing at science, it's Cargo Cult Science. If the RAR/Besslers wheel people started talking all kinds of fancy Quantum Gravity, wormhole through space into extra dimensions, you'd suspect immediately that they had been watching too much Stargate and that a little bit of knowledge can fool all the people all the time. It's all Rodney Mackay bar the Canadian accent and comedy acting. This is how people who know about nuclear physics feel about the CF crowd - wannabes, amateurs, people mixing science fiction with science fact. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and science produced results. In other cases the hope has (to date) proved to be unfounded. Nigel
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Axil, Dr. Franks is merely pointing out the obvious: IBM has succumbed to Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. Always your fellow true believer, -- Jim On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. * IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. Franks, look up the associated vortex post dated a few days ago. This is polariton condensation. Polaritons, something else the Franks must learn to moderate his technical ignorance. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:32 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a children's tea party. You're aiming for an easy target. This list has never aimed for scientific rigor. We're all self-conciously amateurs (with a few non-amateurs quietly watching from the sidelines), sharing what is of interest to us. Your observations above, while perhaps true on some level, are nothing news-breaking. See: http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#rules There have been some bright sceptics who have come and gone because their tone became uncivil, which is unfortunate, because they had some good observations to make. In your case, your observations would be a tad better if they were specific, and about specific claims, rather than being overbroad generalities. All the best, Eric
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Deliberately misquoting or passing off material as what someone said has got to be against forum rules. I ask again, what does the IBM BEC work regarding low dimensional structures, leptons and low energy have to do with CF and hadrons? Can anybody answer these questions, like my others (What is Faraday Efficiency?) without leaping in and insulting me or blinding me with science and bogus references? You people have got to be kidding me if you think that this is how real science is conducted. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, Dr. Franks is merely pointing out the obvious: IBM has succumbed to Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. Always your fellow true believer, -- Jim
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
* It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it.* What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. Just the fact you had no idea that the recombination issue in cold fusion cells had been long settled speaks volumes about your ignorance of this subject generally. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What has hope got to do with science? Your assertion below is incorrect. We know that physical diseases have a biochemical basis, so we are correct to apply the scientific method and *suspect* that greater knowledge and/or a cure will result. This is why people fund the science of cancer research. It is based on the good reputation, good education, legacy of discoveries in the subject. In the case of CF, there is none of this. It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it. You're on the same level as the RAR people, though with a little more knowledge of science but it's all ad-hoc and you attempt to blind people with science on things like BECs, lanthanide contractions, relativistic effects on f-shells, plasmids because it sounds flash and like I said, you are playing at science, it's Cargo Cult Science. If the RAR/Besslers wheel people started talking all kinds of fancy Quantum Gravity, wormhole through space into extra dimensions, you'd suspect immediately that they had been watching too much Stargate and that a little bit of knowledge can fool all the people all the time. It's all Rodney Mackay bar the Canadian accent and comedy acting. This is how people who know about nuclear physics feel about the CF crowd - wannabes, amateurs, people mixing science fiction with science fact. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and science produced results. In other cases the hope has (to date) proved to be unfounded. Nigel
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? And, no you didn't. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Deliberately misquoting or passing off material as what someone said has got to be against forum rules. I ask again, what does the IBM BEC work regarding low dimensional structures, leptons and low energy have to do with CF and hadrons? Can anybody answer these questions, like my others (What is Faraday Efficiency?) without leaping in and insulting me or blinding me with science and bogus references? You people have got to be kidding me if you think that this is how real science is conducted. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, Dr. Franks is merely pointing out the obvious: IBM has succumbed to Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. Always your fellow true believer, -- Jim
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
*Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom?* What are you talking about? Theory? Kim's BEC paper was published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer reviewed journal *gasp*: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6#page-1 And yes I did answer your question in your orphaned thread. FE has no impact on the excess heat effect, because recombination is controlled for. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? And, no you didn't. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
To get back on topic, I think the primary function of guys like John Cranks has to do with a profound human tragedy: The evolution of human eusociality. Let me explain: It is obvious to those with anything approaching critical thinking, that guys like John Cranks (with which the history of CF is generously leavened) are not arguing from a position of intellectual honesty. So what are they doing? Their function is merely to *appear* to be making an sincere argument. Now why would anyone bother with generating such an *appearance*? To appeal to those without anything approaching critical thinking. Why would anyone bother appealing to those without anything approaching critical thinking? The answer is that in high population density societies group selection pressures, sometimes overt as war and gang violence and sometimes as political use of the instruments of government, drive human evolution. In group selection, specialization emerges and, as with insects, that specialization can result in castes that are biologically incapable of independent function. Some of these castes, in human societies, are bereft of critical thinking skills and are biologically dependent on other, intellectual castes, for their survival in these densely populated environments. They are, however, attuned to something that functions as the human equivalent of social insect pheromone signaling -- the *appearance* of intellectual capacity. This appearance functions as a pheromone to mobilize the low-critical thinking castes to attack foreign elements in war or war conducted by other means aka politics. Science as we would like to think of it, open, intellectually honest independent investigation reliant on experiment over argument, emerged during the age of exploration and the opening up for settlement of low population density environments. What we are witnessing in the emergence of group-think politically dominated science is its takeover by biologically eusocial humans in the face of increasing population density. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom?* What are you talking about? Theory? Kim's BEC paper was published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer reviewed journal *gasp*: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6#page-1 And yes I did answer your question in your orphaned thread. FE has no impact on the excess heat effect, because recombination is controlled for. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? And, no you didn't. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards.
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
This image shows the RAR Energia device moving at its maximum rotational velocity: http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem51a.JPG (I'm not sneering, I'm snarking!) - Brad On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
Re: [Vo]:New Advisor John Podesta
This clearly shows why the U.S. is a plutocracy. But more disclosure would be good - even if it will be ignored by Establishment Media. Kader wrote: May be this is good for the future of LENR too? http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/16/the-center-for-american-progress-is-funded-by-big-corporations-and-lobbyists/ http://www.americanprogressaction.org/about/our-supporters/ John Podesta also advocates for disclosure, as far as I know.
[Vo]:What the Japanese Government Isnt Saying About F**ushima
(Video) What the Japanese Government Isnt Saying About Fukushima http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/japanese-government-isnt-saying-fukushima Is this a concern for investors in Japanese stocks? -- LP
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
James, Yes it is. It was then published in Fusion Technology, which I believe George Miley was editing at the time. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of Nature rejected, despite it passing peer Nature's own peer review? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] Nickel-62 is an isotope of nickel having 28 protons and 34 neutrons. It is a stable isotope, with the highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide (8.7945 MeV). It is often stated that 56Fe is the most stable nucleus, but actually 56Fe has the lowest mass per nucleon (not binding energy per nucleon) of all nuclides. The second and third most tightly bound nuclei are those of 58Fe and 56Fe, with binding energies per nucleon of 8.7922 MeV and 8.7903 MeV, respectively. As noted above, the isotope 56Fe has the lowest mass per nucleon of any nuclide, 930.412 MeV/c2, followed by 62Ni with 930.417 MeV/c2 and 60Ni with 930.420 MeV/c2. This is not a contradiction because 62Ni has a greater proportion of neutrons which are more massive than protons. If one looks only at the nuclei proper, without including the electron cloud, 56Fe has again the lowest mass per nucleon (930.175 MeV/c2), followed by 60Ni (930.181 MeV/c2) and 62Ni (930.187 MeV/c2). For example, the ash produce of Rossis reaction was 10% iron. When nickel is fashioned into iron and helium, binding energy is released. Helium has relatively far less binding energy than nickel. The higher the binding energy, the more energy was released upon formation, hence the more must be added to break it apart. It is more difficult to remove a nucleon from 62Ni than from any other isotope. Being at the top of the binding energy curve means that it doesn't want to fission. Thus the reaction: 62Ni - 4He = 58Fe COSTS 7 MeV. It doesn't release energy. In order to get Ni to fission one needs to add a lot of mass/energy. This can be in the form of free nucleons that have zero binding energy. E.g. the reaction 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV Since nickel 62 is at the top of the heap relative to binding energy, any transmutation of nickel will be energetically positive be it from fission or fusion. Note that the top of the binding energy curve is actually the bottom of the potential energy valley. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
Here is more on this topic from the Washington Post. Officials from the U.S. Department of Blatantly Obvious interviewed Kim Junk Un's former classmates in Switzerland and reported: We went to great pains to interview almost everyone – classmates, others – to try to get a sense of what his character was like, Campbell said. The general recounting of those experiences led us to believe that he was dangerous, unpredictable, prone to violence and with delusions of grandeur. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/16/kim-jong-uns-former-classmates-say-he-really-is-dangerous-unpredictable-prone-to-violence Ya' think?!?
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the following: Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some of it is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still likely to only be a small portion. Of that small proportion of coherent infra red, only a small proportion will accelerate charged particles. Of those accelerated charged particles, only a small fraction (1 in 1?) will actually trigger nuclear reactions. Therefore I think it very unlikely that sufficient energy would be released by those reactions to produce the original amount of laser energy that was required to start the process. IOW I doubt this approach would be energy positive overall. However, I could be wrong...;) BTW, the most likely nuclear reaction (IMO) would be:- p (fast) + (A,Z) = (A+1,Z+1) which usually produces gamma rays, which are not in evidence. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
You've cracked the case Franks. Well done. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: That great paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Volume 96, Issue 7, July 2009 ISSN: 0028-1042 (Print) 1432-1904 (Online) In this issue (16 articles) Review A review on molecular topology: applying graph theory to drug discovery and design José María Amigó, Jorge Gálvez, Vincent M. Villar Pages 749-761 Download PDF (289KB) View Article Original Paper Testosterone: from initiating change to modulating social organisation in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) John P. Kent, Kenneth J. Murphy, Finian J. Bannon, Niamh M. Hynes… Pages 763-770 Download PDF (195KB) View Article Original Paper No evidence for sperm priming responses under varying sperm competition risk or intensity in guppies Jonathan P. Evans Pages 771-779 Download PDF (192KB) View Article Original Paper Waterproof and translucent wings at the same time: problems and solutions in butterflies Pablo Perez Goodwyn, Yasunori Maezono, Naoe Hosoda, Kenji Fujisaki Pages 781-787 Download PDF (780KB) View Article Original Paper The armoured dissorophid Cacops from the Early Permian of Oklahoma and the exploitation of the terrestrial realm by amphibians Robert R. Reisz, Rainer R. Schoch, Jason S. Anderson Pages 789-796 Download PDF (410KB) View Article Original Paper The liver but not the skin is the site for conversion of a red carotenoid in a passerine bird Esther del Val, Juan Carlos Senar, Juan Garrido-Fernández… Pages 797-801 Download PDF (132KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles Yeong E. Kim Pages 803-811 Download PDF (216KB) View Article Original Paper Soil resource supply influences faunal size–specific distributions in natural food webs Christian Mulder, Henri A. Den Hollander, J. Arie Vonk… Pages 813-826 Download PDF (1607KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER Cold winter temperatures condition the egg-hatching dynamics of a grape disease vector Julien Chuche, Denis Thiéry Pages 827-834 Download PDF (264KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER When signal meets noise: immunity of the frog ear to interference Mario Penna, Juan Pablo Gormaz, Peter M. Narins Pages 835-843 Download PDF (262KB) View Article Short Communication Polymorphic ROS scavenging revealed by CCCP in a lizard Mats Olsson, Mark Wilson, Caroline Isaksson, Tobias Uller Pages 845-849 Download PDF (113KB) View Article Short Communication Olfactory learning and memory in the bumblebee Bombus occidentalis Andre J. Riveros, Wulfila Gronenberg Pages 851-856 Download PDF (193KB) View Article Short Communication Decision rules for egg recognition are related to functional roles and chemical cues in the queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps Ivelize C. Tannure-Nascimento, Fabio S. Nascimento, José O. Dantas… Pages 857-861 Download PDF (203KB) View Article SHORT COMMUNICATION Impact of biocide treatments on the bacterial communities of the Lascaux Cave Fabiola Bastian, Claude Alabouvette, Valme Jurado… Pages 863-868 Download PDF (158KB) View Article Comments Replies Turanoceratops tardabilis—sister taxon, but not a ceratopsid Andrew A. Farke, Scott D. Sampson, Catherine A. Forster… Pages 869-870 Download PDF (69KB) View Article Comments Replies Phylogenetic position of Turanoceratops (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) Hans-Dieter Sues, Alexander Averianov Pages 871-872 Download PDF (76KB) View Article
[Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
That great paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Volume 96, Issue 7, July 2009 ISSN: 0028-1042 (Print) 1432-1904 (Online) In this issue (16 articles) Review A review on molecular topology: applying graph theory to drug discovery and design José María Amigó, Jorge Gálvez, Vincent M. Villar Pages 749-761 Download PDF (289KB) View Article Original Paper Testosterone: from initiating change to modulating social organisation in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) John P. Kent, Kenneth J. Murphy, Finian J. Bannon, Niamh M. Hynes… Pages 763-770 Download PDF (195KB) View Article Original Paper No evidence for sperm priming responses under varying sperm competition risk or intensity in guppies Jonathan P. Evans Pages 771-779 Download PDF (192KB) View Article Original Paper Waterproof and translucent wings at the same time: problems and solutions in butterflies Pablo Perez Goodwyn, Yasunori Maezono, Naoe Hosoda, Kenji Fujisaki Pages 781-787 Download PDF (780KB) View Article Original Paper The armoured dissorophid Cacops from the Early Permian of Oklahoma and the exploitation of the terrestrial realm by amphibians Robert R. Reisz, Rainer R. Schoch, Jason S. Anderson Pages 789-796 Download PDF (410KB) View Article Original Paper The liver but not the skin is the site for conversion of a red carotenoid in a passerine bird Esther del Val, Juan Carlos Senar, Juan Garrido-Fernández… Pages 797-801 Download PDF (132KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles Yeong E. Kim Pages 803-811 Download PDF (216KB) View Article Original Paper Soil resource supply influences faunal size–specific distributions in natural food webs Christian Mulder, Henri A. Den Hollander, J. Arie Vonk… Pages 813-826 Download PDF (1607KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER Cold winter temperatures condition the egg-hatching dynamics of a grape disease vector Julien Chuche, Denis Thiéry Pages 827-834 Download PDF (264KB) View Article ORIGINAL PAPER When signal meets noise: immunity of the frog ear to interference Mario Penna, Juan Pablo Gormaz, Peter M. Narins Pages 835-843 Download PDF (262KB) View Article Short Communication Polymorphic ROS scavenging revealed by CCCP in a lizard Mats Olsson, Mark Wilson, Caroline Isaksson, Tobias Uller Pages 845-849 Download PDF (113KB) View Article Short Communication Olfactory learning and memory in the bumblebee Bombus occidentalis Andre J. Riveros, Wulfila Gronenberg Pages 851-856 Download PDF (193KB) View Article Short Communication Decision rules for egg recognition are related to functional roles and chemical cues in the queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps Ivelize C. Tannure-Nascimento, Fabio S. Nascimento, José O. Dantas… Pages 857-861 Download PDF (203KB) View Article SHORT COMMUNICATION Impact of biocide treatments on the bacterial communities of the Lascaux Cave Fabiola Bastian, Claude Alabouvette, Valme Jurado… Pages 863-868 Download PDF (158KB) View Article Comments Replies Turanoceratops tardabilis—sister taxon, but not a ceratopsid Andrew A. Farke, Scott D. Sampson, Catherine A. Forster… Pages 869-870 Download PDF (69KB) View Article Comments Replies Phylogenetic position of Turanoceratops (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) Hans-Dieter Sues, Alexander Averianov Pages 871-872 Download PDF (76KB) View Article
Re: [Vo]:possible explanation with illustrations
Eric, et al, The momentum/energy kick exerted on a charged particle can be calculated using the formula provided by Feynman (vol. 3, equation (21.16)), or by Barbieri, et al (p.6, equation (27)) - It is the time integral of the induced electric field E = -dA/dt = the time derivative of the magnetic vector potential caused when current/magnetic field strength changes. (integrated over the time interval of the change) As Feynman notes - The electric field is enormous if the flux is changing rapidly, and it gives a force on the particle. [1] Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. 3, Ch. 21 http://www.peaceone.net/basic/Feynman/V3%20Ch21.pdf [2] An educational path for the magnetic vector potential and its physical implications http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5619.pdf In some nano-circuits and plasma arcs, a huge field is generated. - LP Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Nigel Dyer I'm intrigued by the 'fusion observed in the vicinity of transformers' comment. ... Nigel This could be a reference to nuclear transmutation associated with high voltage power lines. ... Yes, that sounds right -- thanks Jones. I didn't remember that detail veryaccurately. In my head the concepts high voltage power line and transmutation became transformer and fusion. I would not have made a very good journalist. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update
Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of Nature rejected, despite it passing peer Nature's own peer review? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is wrong with the data Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatability or another 70-80%. If that is the case, why are you arguing with me? Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. Silly rabbit. They had something working. (see my first response above). I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the Big 3 objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. If you are quoting stuff from that long ago, where is the monograph. Where are the graduate level courses at top institutions teaching this as you seem to regard it as common knowledge. You people are not scientists, or even engineers. You are journalists, activists, the awkward squad who mistake shouting, posturing, getting liked on facebook or youtube as the process of doing science. All I have to report, as ever, is that Cold Fusion is a dead subject full of wannabes, the mentally ill and geriatrics, since no self-respecting young person would waste time learning useless knowledge in this subject.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
*SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * Can you stop yelling? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
NO! I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy, has a STI and the nurse at the clinic just shouted it out to the whole waiting room. Use protection when doing science or you'll be ill-conceived, unplanned or oozing pus. Oh dear! (Shakes head, buries head in hands) On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * Can you stop yelling? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...* Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: NO! I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy, has a STI and the nurse at the clinic just shouted it out to the whole waiting room. Use protection when doing science or you'll be ill-conceived, unplanned or oozing pus. Oh dear! (Shakes head, buries head in hands) On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * Can you stop yelling? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 years. UNSUBSCRIBING. In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...* Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
OK. See you Mr. Franks. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 years. UNSUBSCRIBING. In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...* Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 years. UNSUBSCRIBING. No, you are not unsubscribing. You may think you are headed out the front door, but you keep putting on your coat and then walking into hallway closet and slamming the door behind you. This way out: To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Put the single word unsubscribe in the subject line of the header. No quotes around unsubscribe, of course.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: That great paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Yeah if anyone puts forth a theory that must mean we're to henceforth ignore all the experimental evidence and admit no other theories. And I remember in high school going to the local college library to read AAAS Science and being sorely annoyed that all they seemed to publish were papers on BIOLOGY.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team. I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ the best hence now is not a good time to admit defeat and save face. If one wanted to save face one would have admitted being defeated by Dr. Nathan Lewis's argument when he made it. Its too late for us now. We must labor on supporting the untenable belief in the possibility that something interesting happened in FP's electrolytic cells lo these many years ago. We are, as Dr. Cranks stated, going to die defending our delusions. Its tragic. I really feel for us. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at the same ACS (pretty sure) meeting, where F presented excess heat in the majority of his cells. Lewis didn't raise a peep, not about stirring, not about anything, whereas prior he was one of the noisiest and most sarcastic deniers, spouting off whenever given the opportunity. C) This surprised me when I read about it. He actually visited McKubre at SRI (along with Richard Garwin no less), found nothing wrong with the process, and still remained completely silent. Never retracting a single prior damaging statement. Now Caltech, and their heroes Lewis and Koonin, can continue their charade of defending the world from the pathological science boogeyman. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team. I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ the best hence now is not a good time to admit defeat and save face. If one wanted to save face one would have admitted being defeated by Dr. Nathan Lewis's argument when he made it. Its too late for us now. We must labor on supporting the untenable belief in the possibility that something interesting happened in FP's electrolytic cells lo these many years ago. We are, as Dr. Cranks stated, going to die defending our delusions. Its tragic. I really feel for us. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
The real weasel at CalTech is Goodsteinhttp://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html -- basically realizing that CalTech had committed a crime against humanity and trying to write a historic placeholder they can point to to say See! We didn't really deny it! It wasn't our fault! On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at the same ACS (pretty sure) meeting, where F presented excess heat in the majority of his cells. Lewis didn't raise a peep, not about stirring, not about anything, whereas prior he was one of the noisiest and most sarcastic deniers, spouting off whenever given the opportunity. C) This surprised me when I read about it. He actually visited McKubre at SRI (along with Richard Garwin no less), found nothing wrong with the process, and still remained completely silent. Never retracting a single prior damaging statement. Now Caltech, and their heroes Lewis and Koonin, can continue their charade of defending the world from the pathological science boogeyman. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team. I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ the best hence now is not a good time to admit defeat and save face. If one wanted to save face one would have admitted being defeated by Dr. Nathan Lewis's argument when he made it. Its too late for us now. We must labor on supporting the untenable belief in the possibility that something interesting happened in FP's electrolytic cells lo these many years ago. We are, as Dr. Cranks stated, going to die defending our delusions. Its tragic. I really feel for us. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.comwrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
RE: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Well, the aptly-named one :-) certainly knows how to get a rise out of his patients, so to speak . From: Foks0904 James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we?
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. All these psuedoskeptics do is avoid the excess heat claim. Lets bash P-F neutron detection. Lets bash theory. Lets just assume the calorimetry was wrong, even though most physicists know nothing about calorimetry and are out of their element trying to critique it. None of the prominent skeptics went in the lab to try. Atleast Langmuir, who defined pathological science, debunked his targets by actually going into the lab and doing the work. And of course those who couldn't replicate the work had to assume scientific truth could be ferreted out over the course of weeks instead of the 5 years it took P-F and others. Rob Duncan, a skeptic, put his money where his mouth was, came out convinced, and had the balls to speak up about it. I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:09 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The real weasel at CalTech is Goodsteinhttp://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html -- basically realizing that CalTech had committed a crime against humanity and trying to write a historic placeholder they can point to to say See! We didn't really deny it! It wasn't our fault! On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at the same ACS (pretty sure) meeting, where F presented excess heat in the majority of his cells. Lewis didn't raise a peep, not about stirring, not about anything, whereas prior he was one of the noisiest and most sarcastic deniers, spouting off whenever given the opportunity. C) This surprised me when I read about it. He actually visited McKubre at SRI (along with Richard Garwin no less), found nothing wrong with the process, and still remained completely silent. Never retracting a single prior damaging statement. Now Caltech, and their heroes Lewis and Koonin, can continue their charade of defending the world from the pathological science boogeyman. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team. I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ the best hence now is not a good time to admit defeat and save face. If one wanted to save face one would have admitted being defeated by Dr. Nathan Lewis's argument when he made it. Its too late for us now. We must labor on supporting the untenable belief in the possibility that something interesting happened in FP's electrolytic cells lo these many years ago. We are, as Dr. Cranks stated, going to die defending our delusions. Its tragic. I really feel for us. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.comwrote: Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the deuterons of their kinetic energy. From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. So, like I said, who is citing this paper, what was its readership, who cast a critical eye over it? Having something published doesn't make it right, it's the start of the discussion. SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what. So, Garwin had his tea but choked on it. Lovely!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
I really enjoyed Garwin's response during the 60-minutes piece when told that the Department of Defense study left no doubt that excess heat was produced. About 10 minutes in Garwin (looking very uncomfortable): ...Well...that's a statement...I'm living proof that there is doubt...they can say that excess heat is being produced...but they cannot say there is no doubt...only that they don't doubt. Dear God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what. So, Garwin had his tea but choked on it. Lovely!
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I want to really embarrass myself and/or continue to have a promising career? I do not blame him for speaking equivocally about cold fusion. When one has colleagues like John Franks, there is a lot of pressure to be politic. I hope we did not taint John Franks. His email address was sufficiently obfuscated that hopefully his colleagues will not find out about his time here. Re some points that were raised: - I'm personally not all that impressed by the fact that a cold fusion article has been published in Naturwissenschaften, although it's better than publishing in a hobby magazine, no doubt. - Concerning this point: From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. -- I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these complaints are good ones. I get the impression that one of the consequences of cold fusion being a pariah field is that there is not sufficient critique brought to bear on some theories and thought experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
Eric, You're right about critiques of theory generally speaking. Those within the field who are most able (i.e. academic theoreticians) to critique theory are often silent about others work. Storms is not a physicist-theoretician by profession, but his comprehensive reviews and critiques (and his NAE + hydroton theory) are very well thought out and important in that they often fill a void bereft of comprehensive critique. Honestly I think Takahashi's TSC-Theory is better developed than Kims, and Meulenberg-Sinha Lochon Model is thorough as well, and of course Hagelstein is heavy on the math and thoughtfulness, but my opinion is of little importance as to which is better than which. But the major issue as you likely know is that theorists are suffering from lack of data, most notably from NiH systems (ash, etc.). Naturwissenschaften is a reputable journal with a decent impact factor. And considering chemistry undergirds biology, the marriage between CF and a largely biology-centered publication is not crazy. Biology and chemistry are also both bedfellows in that they are messy non-linear sciences. I think its rather obvious they are not asking biologists to peer review the submissions. With that said, people like Franks don't even think the heat effect is real, so his and their complaints about theory are pointless. As with all pseudo-skeptics they do everything to avoid the elephant in the room: that the heat effect is real. They have no meaningful objections to that fact, all they can criticize are neutron detection and theory. It's a sad joke. All the best, John On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I want to really embarrass myself and/or continue to have a promising career? I do not blame him for speaking equivocally about cold fusion. When one has colleagues like John Franks, there is a lot of pressure to be politic. I hope we did not taint John Franks. His email address was sufficiently obfuscated that hopefully his colleagues will not find out about his time here. Re some points that were raised: - I'm personally not all that impressed by the fact that a cold fusion article has been published in Naturwissenschaften, although it's better than publishing in a hobby magazine, no doubt. - Concerning this point: From all this, supposedly all these heavy deuterons can then condense into a BEC state. Then from this belief he derives some bogus selection rules which favors helium production. He derives some nuclear rate reactions that are devoid of the Gamow factor and hails this as proof that the Coulomb repulsion has been overcome and furthermore, since his deuterons have gone into the BEC state, the nuclear reactions he wants then proceed with vigor. -- I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these complaints are good ones. I get the impression that one of the consequences of cold fusion being a pariah field is that there is not sufficient critique brought to bear on some theories and thought experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I want to really embarrass myself and/or continue to have a promising career? I do not blame him for speaking equivocally about cold fusion. When one has colleagues like John Franks, there is a lot of pressure to be politic. As provost Goodstein had an obligation to demand that Lewis reproduce, based on the full FP paper with its corrections, the errors Lewis claimed FP made. This would have been the way to frame the additional effort and it would accord with standard scientific protocol. He would have taken virtually no risks in doing this.
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
- Original Message - From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:05:25 PM Subject: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper That great paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Gee : here's another all biology journal http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue.html Research Highlights Top * Animal behaviour: Baboons know when to be noisy * Agroecology: Bees are better for strawberries * Climate change: Melting ice spurs wild weather * Astrophysics: Trio of distant quasars found * Biotechnology: CRISPR corrects genetic disease * Meteorology: Satellite improves storm forecasts * Neuroscience: Primate brain makes oestrogen * Ecology: Why rabies hangs on after bat culls * Palaeontology: Ancient reptiles stuck to the air etc etc (Has he made his way out of the closet yet? )
Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper
As the Little River Band said,
Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out!
And perhaps in a few years we'll see if it was your theory dreamboat
that ran onto the sand, or hundreds of respectible scientists simply
looking into an anomaly, which is what science is supposed to be
about...
Good riddins... and not a second too soon.
-mark
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM, John Franks wrote:
I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the
past 20 years.
UNSUBSCRIBING.
In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
wrote:
I already conceded defeat Franks.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your
ecstasy and joy...
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('foks0...@gmail.com')
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
There are many assertions in this post that may be misapplied. The polariton will form a BEC up to a temperature of 2300K. The generation of heat in Rossi's reactor is superfluidic. During the reactor meltdown event in the first impartial Rossi test, the picture of the meltdown showed that the entire pipe glowed red, this glow not just produced by the heat concentrated at hot spots near the nickel nano-powder. The reaction is not based on accelerating charged particles; it is based on screening caused by the production of intense EMF. This EMF turns down the force that keeps the nickel nucleus together. This is what I mean by photo-fission. Oftentimes, a single alpha particle is released from the nickel and iron is formed. Sometime, multiple alpha clusters are released as indicated by the large amount of light elements that are seen as transmutation produces in the DGT ash samples. That 7MeV of binding energy that you site is released into the gamma thermalization process of the BEC. The strong force is not affected or overcome by the kinetic energy of an excited particle; the strong force is just removed by an EMF that gently deactivates the strong force. The alpha particle drifts out of the nickel nucleus gently. Energy handling is not kinetic, it is all electromagnetic. This lack of kinetic activity is why excited isotopes are not formed. All energy release processes are done at very low energies under the influence of the coherent and entangled averaging potential of the polariton BEC. This BEC energy averaging is why no gamma radiation is seen in the Ni/H reactor. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the following: Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some of it is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still likely to only be a small portion. Of that small proportion of coherent infra red, only a small proportion will accelerate charged particles. Of those accelerated charged particles, only a small fraction (1 in 1?) will actually trigger nuclear reactions. Therefore I think it very unlikely that sufficient energy would be released by those reactions to produce the original amount of laser energy that was required to start the process. IOW I doubt this approach would be energy positive overall. However, I could be wrong...;) BTW, the most likely nuclear reaction (IMO) would be:- p (fast) + (A,Z) = (A+1,Z+1) which usually produces gamma rays, which are not in evidence. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
