Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
This remind me the controversial concept of incommensurability of Thomas Kuhn, that I conforms practically. As many show them, and even more deeply that what Kuhn says, a paradigm is admitted nearly only when it is industrial ... the other case, similar, is when laymen can have access to so clear data that the denial by elite is impossible. Industrial application is such a case. In a way the old paradigm surrender only by foreign force. this observed fact have been strawman-ized by the relativist of science... those guys who pretend that scientific theory are purely linked to political interests, forget that the reality most of the time have the last word in the debate of vested interests. however it can take centuries, and it does not always happen in some very political/funded domain like economy, medicine... 2014/1/2 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com It just appears that many people maintain some level of doubt regardless of the evidence before them. They always suspect that a trick of some sort is being conducted. Consider the major problem we recently had convincing the skeptics that the latest Rossi 3rd party test was legitimate. I seriously doubt that any of them changed their minds even though they could prove nothing of substance. There is always room for doubt when a subject defies your belief system. I think that his behavior is consistent with many peoples reactions. I am not confident that he would have accepted any amount of excess power as beyond trickery. It would have helped had the excess been 100%, but that might still have not been sufficient for him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I just read the paper again and believe that the author is not confident that excess heat is being generated. He should be, though. Because as he himself says: The uncertainty in excess power measurement is about 50 mW, but the excess power appears to be on the order of 500 mW or even 1 W peak. If he agrees that is true then there is no doubt the effect is real. He does not give any reason to doubt this. He gives disingenuous reasons to ignore this fact, starting with: We also had extensive discussions of data from one of these cells, which according to a summary chart has provided about 3% excess heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Garwin is a scientist and by training tends to be very cautious. The excuses that he used to doubt the excess power measurement of course are lame, but we should note that he included them. This is the type of behavior one might expect from someone who just witnessed a magic trick that he is unable to figure out. Or someone that stumbled upon a new process unknown to standard physics that might take a long time to explain. His mind would be torn between believing his observations and assuming that they can be understood if sufficient time and effort is applied to that issue. I suspect that most scientists in that position would hedge their bets for the moment and that appears to be what Garwin has done. He refuses to believe that cold fusion of any type is possible due to his training and vast experience. Surely the people conducting the experiment made some type of blunder, even though it appears quite subtle. He likely feels that if given enough time, he will be able to prove the error. In this case he does not have enough time to waste so he merely states what he witnessed. This does not mean that he agrees with the conclusion that we all accept. If we could confine him within a room for a couple of months, or maybe years in his case, where all of his energy is expended in the conduction of more and more precise measurements, he will reluctantly change his mind. That is about the only way this will occur. I strongly believe that his trip to McKubre's lab was not to find the truth, but instead to teach him the errors of his methods. There was zero chance for Garwin to announce that cold fusion were real under any circumstances. That denial continues to this day. Being on the wrong side of history is the price he will pay for his reluctance to accept the proof before him. So far, the cost has been negligible to him. But keep in mind that he believes exactly the same thing about scientists who continue to work in this field. Unfortunately many of them have paid a dear price for their efforts with little reward. One day the table will turn. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 9:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
[Vo]:North American Palladium
North American Palladium is one of two palladium producers in North America, and its stock has dropped below $1 share. It is currently unprofitable, but moving in the right direction - having sold its gold mines at top dollar before gold tanked. This article has a lot of good info on palladium mining and prices. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1925841-north-american-palladium-likely-a-mu lti-bagger?source=email_authors_alertsifp=0 The average ore has only 4.5 grams per ton of rock. No wonder the average price is expected to be $710/oz in 2014 but it could go over $900 by some estimates. In actual testing of hydrogen loading - Ahern found that an alloy of 5% Pd in 95%nickel loads considerably more hydrogen than pure palladium (greater than 1:1). However, with hydrogen (as opposed to deuterium) there was NOT a good correlation between loading and excess heat. With deuterium and palladium there is apparently an excellent correlation between D loading and excess heat. Once again, this is a strong clue that leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are several gainful reactions going-on in hydrogen loaded metals, and the gainful reactions of hydrogen are very different from that of deuterium. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Interesting Recent Rossi Statement
Rossi made a statement on his Journal recently that seemed puzzling at the time. He mentioned that he was turning on the drive power for 1/4 of the time and allowing the device to drift in the self sustaining mode for the other 3/4. He further told us that he was working of having the ECAT return all of the drive power even during the active drive time. At the time, I did not give this statement much thought, but today I was reviewing the operation of my latest computer model and found his statement revealing. If you assume that he is driving the core with input at a rapid periodic rate so that the output power variation is well filtered by the time constants of the system then this goal would only yield a COP of 4. We know that he plans to guarantee a COP of at least 6 so I believe that we can dismiss a very short period PWM drive function. The model therefore points us in the direction of a slower process. Either technique can be used to achieve a stable(with great care) ECAT control system, but the slower pulse rate at this duty cycle can be induced to reach a higher COP. The reason a lower period drive achieves higher gain is because of the shape of the internally generated power waveform. Most of my original model work included this type of plan since it is easier to generate power input efficiently with rail to rail digital signals. I assumed that Rossi was going for the easiest and quickest method for his design since there is less risk involved. The internal core power generation mechanism exhibits an interesting behavior when the thermal runaway temperature threshold is approached. There is a time constant associated with the thermal balances acting in conjunction with the net thermal mass which approaches infinity at that exact point. Of course, Rossi can not afford to actually reach that level without active cooling since his device would melt with a tiny error in temperature. But apparently he is willing to come close to that level to reach his COP goal. As I mentioned above, the thermal time constant approaches infinity as a limit when the internal core temperature approaches thermal runaway. This results in the core holding onto the elevated temperature and associated power generation level for a time that extends in duration. This is a non linear process which effectively generates much more power than a linear time constant system. Most of the systems that we deal with have linear time constants and therefore that is what we tend to expect. The ECAT depends upon the other effect for its elevated COP. This conclusion is based upon my computer models and of course might be in error due to the lack of data from Rossi. I believe that the trends can be reasonably derived from the model behavior and the statements that Rossi leaks to us on rare occasions is well supported by the model. Unless he has a computer model much like mine, we can be assured that the ECAT is real since I can not imagine how he would guess at this type of mechanism without some form of evidence in support of his leaks. Dave
[Vo]:Predictions 2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/isaac-asimov-2014_n_4530785.html What do you see? Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:North American Palladium
Jones, This sounds risky. What industries will benefit most if energy prices plummet? -- for whatever reason. The shipping companies seem like a good bet, but they have already shot up in the stock markets. What about transportation, battery, electric motor, rare earth metals, etc.? -- LP Jones Beene wrote: North American Palladium is one of two palladium producers in North America, and its stock has dropped below $1 share. It is currently unprofitable, but moving in the right direction - having sold its gold mines at top dollar before gold tanked. This article has a lot of good info on palladium mining and prices. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1925841-north-american-palladium-likely-a-mu lti-bagger?source=email_authors_alertsifp=0 The average ore has only 4.5 grams per ton of rock. No wonder the average price is expected to be $710/oz in 2014 but it could go over $900 by some estimates. In actual testing of hydrogen loading - Ahern found that an alloy of 5% Pd in 95%nickel loads considerably more hydrogen than pure palladium (greater than 1:1). However, with hydrogen (as opposed to deuterium) there was NOT a good correlation between loading and excess heat. With deuterium and palladium there is apparently an excellent correlation between D loading and excess heat. Once again, this is a strong clue that leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are several gainful reactions going-on in hydrogen loaded metals, and the gainful reactions of hydrogen are very different from that of deuterium. Jones
[Vo]:E-cat world reports two companies connected with Rossi
E-cat World has lately been reporting that two companies are connected with Rossi: Cherokee Investments, Industrial Heat LLC. Someone told me by e-mail that Rossi has an assistant name Fulvio Fabiani who is connected with these companies. I don't know anything about this. I am just now catching up with e-cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat world reports two companies connected with Rossi
Here is the article that connects Rossi, Fabiani and someone named Darden in the Research Triangle in North Carolina: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/examining-the-rossi-industrial-heat-cherokee-connection/ Darden is evidently a billionaire with connections to Bain Capital. http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-darden/ The Chinese are involved. It has all the makings of a third-class drugstore paperback thriller. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat world reports two companies connected with Rossi
I don't think TomDarden's a billionaire, Jed. It just so happens that there is a link to the World's Billionaires above his profile page on Forbes. He's currently the CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners in Raleigh, NC. He worked at Bain Capital in the 1980s. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is the article that connects Rossi, Fabiani and someone named Darden in the Research Triangle in North Carolina: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/examining-the-rossi-industrial-heat-cherokee-connection/ Darden is evidently a billionaire with connections to Bain Capital. http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-darden/ The Chinese are involved. It has all the makings of a third-class drugstore paperback thriller. - Jed -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com
Re: [Vo]:Interesting Recent Rossi Statement
I am beginning to suspect that Rossi may have figured out what his reaction is really doing. The core principle of the nanoplasmonic reaction involves the process of how the micro and nano particles come together into aggregations to form the nuclear active sites. These sites are the spaces between the aggregations of particles that form naturally in a dusty plasma. The process of nanoparticle control including aggregation control driven by electrostatic attraction and repulsion is a well-known and widely used mechanism in nano-engineering. The first control mechanism developed to control particle aggregation is electrostatic control. See this abstract for details: http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-5148/index.html Using electrostatic based control, it may be possible in the E-Cat to control the nature of nanoparticle behavior by using electronic control. By producing a negative or positive electrostatic potential in the hydrogen envelop, both a positive and negative reaction feedback process can be initiated using electrostatic control based on plasma temperature sensing as an input parameter. If this is the control mechanism that Rossi has developed, it would be a very important advance is Ni/H technology and reaction understanding. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Rossi made a statement on his Journal recently that seemed puzzling at the time. He mentioned that he was turning on the drive power for 1/4 of the time and allowing the device to drift in the self sustaining mode for the other 3/4. He further told us that he was working of having the ECAT return *all* of the drive power even during the active drive time. At the time, I did not give this statement much thought, but today I was reviewing the operation of my latest computer model and found his statement revealing. If you assume that he is driving the core with input at a rapid periodic rate so that the output power variation is well filtered by the time constants of the system then this goal would only yield a COP of 4. We know that he plans to guarantee a COP of at least 6 so I believe that we can dismiss a very short period PWM drive function. The model therefore points us in the direction of a slower process. Either technique can be used to achieve a stable(with great care) ECAT control system, but the slower pulse rate at this duty cycle can be induced to reach a higher COP. The reason a lower period drive achieves higher gain is because of the shape of the internally generated power waveform. Most of my original model work included this type of plan since it is easier to generate power input efficiently with rail to rail digital signals. I assumed that Rossi was going for the easiest and quickest method for his design since there is less risk involved. The internal core power generation mechanism exhibits an interesting behavior when the thermal runaway temperature threshold is approached. There is a time constant associated with the thermal balances acting in conjunction with the net thermal mass which approaches infinity at that exact point. Of course, Rossi can not afford to actually reach that level without active cooling since his device would melt with a tiny error in temperature. But apparently he is willing to come close to that level to reach his COP goal. As I mentioned above, the thermal time constant approaches infinity as a limit when the internal core temperature approaches thermal runaway. This results in the core holding onto the elevated temperature and associated power generation level for a time that extends in duration. This is a non linear process which effectively generates much more power than a linear time constant system. Most of the systems that we deal with have linear time constants and therefore that is what we tend to expect. The ECAT depends upon the other effect for its elevated COP. This conclusion is based upon my computer models and of course might be in error due to the lack of data from Rossi. I believe that the trends can be reasonably derived from the model behavior and the statements that Rossi leaks to us on rare occasions is well supported by the model. Unless he has a computer model much like mine, we can be assured that the ECAT is real since I can not imagine how he would guess at this type of mechanism without some form of evidence in support of his leaks. Dave
Re: [Vo]:E-cat world reports two companies connected with Rossi
Frank Acland ecatwo...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think TomDarden's a billionaire, Jed. I'll bet he is. He is the CEO of a private investment firm that raised $1.4 billion on 2006. The money must have made a profit by now. He is loaded, anyway. With connections everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat world reports two companies connected with Rossi
It looks like China will lead the way in LENR. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/stron ... rom-china/http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/strong-confirmation-of-cherokees-backing-of-the-e-cat-from-china/ I have been concerned that the billion dollar per year political slush fund funded by the energy lobby would be used to support the current simpleton Rossi bashing that goes on the internet when the true potential of LENR was made plain to the western energy companies. China is its own master unlike the western governments who kowtow to the plutocracy. After all actions have consequences. If China becomes a leader in LENR, then the nonsense that goes on in the western political system will be made irrelevant. For the west including the simpleton LENR bashers on the internet and the arrogant and self important academics, it will be accept LERN or die. *Quote:* On a broader scale, this outreach to China is a very interesting development. Cherokee has long worked in China, so Mr. Darden has plenty of connections there. It would seem China’s command economy, if the government really gets on board with the E-Cat, would be able to diffuse the technology much faster than in many western countries where there are many competing interests and lobbies, with many legal, regulatory and economic barriers to something so radically new as the E-Cat. In China, if those in power want something to happen, they usually find a way to make it happen. If China does lead the way, it will be interesting to see how the rest of the world would respond — who would want to be left in the dust, if China turns to a clean, green, and superior energy source? On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Acland ecatwo...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think TomDarden's a billionaire, Jed. I'll bet he is. He is the CEO of a private investment firm that raised $1.4 billion on 2006. The money must have made a profit by now. He is loaded, anyway. With connections everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand that. If he does not understand it he is incompetent and if he does understand it he is being disingenuous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The lesson of Benabou model is between both your visions. Groupthink : Collective Delusions In Organizations and Markets(Paper IOM 2012-07 by Roland Benabou)http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf in fact those guy are intelligent, they know they are toasted on longterm, they know they will be toasted faster if they open their eyes. so all their IQ is used to close their brain, their eyes. Intelligence and competence have nothing to do. Subprime crisis was predictable by a junior economist, just seeing the correlation of assets... LENR could be accepted as not impossible by someone with lattice QM education...at list not impossible for just 2-body argument (maybe the best lattice QM theorist could ruleout some LENR, but we have enough occupied to manage semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, and they have no time to disprove LENR)... like you I am sure that it is not a problem of competence. question is if they - made a bet that it was so improbable, that they decided to cook 2 chemist for lunch, taking a slight risk of being wrong... but no, cannot be wrong see Lewis... - uncounsciously feel that it was so damaging for their funding, their physicist ego, that they denied the reality, blocking any capacity of their brain. that capacity to block your brain is very common http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf delusion start after a period of rationality, when commitment, and codependence are too huge to allow individual stepback. Beaudette have a different theory, it is that they lived in the unreal worl of particle physics for too long and were not able to understand real experiment lab work, with shit happens, hard to replicate, unreliable... one exmaple of their incompetence in experimental work that shocked me, as modest engineer, is tha they asked for IDENTICAL replication... it is stupid, since you can also replicate artifacts... and difficulties to replicate is never a surprise... hard to imagine one can be so stupid, but some professions, like judge or physicist have a problem with reality. that is education if not brainwashing during studies, as Thomas Kuhn describe. 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting.
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
*Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair: *It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!* On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: The lesson of Benabou model is between both your visions. Groupthink : Collective Delusions In Organizations and Markets(Paper IOM 2012-07 by Roland Benabou)http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf in fact those guy are intelligent, they know they are toasted on longterm, they know they will be toasted faster if they open their eyes. so all their IQ is used to close their brain, their eyes. Intelligence and competence have nothing to do. Subprime crisis was predictable by a junior economist, just seeing the correlation of assets... LENR could be accepted as not impossible by someone with lattice QM education...at list not impossible for just 2-body argument (maybe the best lattice QM theorist could ruleout some LENR, but we have enough occupied to manage semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, and they have no time to disprove LENR)... like you I am sure that it is not a problem of competence. question is if they - made a bet that it was so improbable, that they decided to cook 2 chemist for lunch, taking a slight risk of being wrong... but no, cannot be wrong see Lewis... - uncounsciously feel that it was so damaging for their funding, their physicist ego, that they denied the reality, blocking any capacity of their brain. that capacity to block your brain is very common http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf delusion start after a period of rationality, when commitment, and codependence are too huge to allow individual stepback. Beaudette have a different theory, it is that they lived in the unreal worl of particle physics for too long and were not able to understand real experiment lab work, with shit happens, hard to replicate, unreliable... one exmaple of their incompetence in experimental work that shocked me, as modest engineer, is tha they asked for IDENTICAL replication... it is stupid, since you can also replicate artifacts... and difficulties to replicate is never a surprise... hard to imagine one can be so stupid, but some professions, like judge or physicist have a problem with reality. that is education if not brainwashing during studies, as Thomas Kuhn describe. 2014/1/4 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on
[Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
See: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/01/03/u-s-department-of-energy-invites-submission-of-lenr-proposals/
[Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Recently we had a short discussion concerning objects being ejected from planetary systems such as ours. I was toying with the Planets program that I stumbled upon when testing Linux. That program is very interesting and it is easy to fiddle away hours of time just observing how planets interact in a two dimensional stellar system. I recommend that anyone desiring to be fascinated give it a try! One interesting observation that caught my attention was that so many objects appeared to be ejected from the system as they interacted with others orbiting the star. My concern is that this suggested that perhaps millions of these large and dangerous objects would be drifting in open space and some might actually find their way to earth. I made a short post to the list and some of the vorts suggested that the reason for the apparent onslaught was rounding off errors in the math calculating the inverse square law interactions. I looked into the issue further and come away believing that the effect is real and they are out there. In further playing with these types of systems, I generated some with two similar sized star equivalents in orbit around themselves. Each one was orbiting the center of mass of the system at a fairly fast rate. When I introduced planets to the system, it was brutal. Almost every one of the planets that passed near the stars was immediately sent rapidly exiting the system or found itself being destroyed by one of the pair. This effect was so pronounced that I realized that there must be something that demonstrated its powerful influence under these conditions. I reviewed planetary orbits and found the reason fairly quickly. The escape velocity associated with a star or planet is only the square root of two times larger than the orbital velocity at that radius. Also, gravity assist is used to send space probes into and beyond the outer reaches of the solar system all the time and is quite effective. A typical probe can gain the orbital velocity of the object that it encounters by a moderately close fly by. With this process available, an object that begins at a position that is for example located at the distance of the Earth from the sun can fly by Mercury and gain sufficient speed to escape the suns gravity entirely. This same effect would result in the ejection of many random objects that find their way near to inner planets. This would likely happen often and the program appears to demonstrate this nicely. To add some numbers to the words: The escape velocity for an object at the distance of Mercury from the Sun is 67.7 kilometers/second. The same figure for an Earth distance object is 42.1 kilometers/second. So our object orbiting at the Earth's distance from the Sun would be moving at 42.1 km/sec / 1.1414 or 29.77 km/sec. Now, if we direct the object toward Mercury and pick up its orbital velocity of 67.7 km/sec / 1.414 which is 47.87 km/sec , then it is evident that it will have sufficient velocity to escape the Sun's influence. For these reasons, I believe that empty space between stars is more than likely not empty at all and that many large objects are passing through the solar system every year as they wander about. The probability of collisions is small, but not zero due to the enormous dimensions of space and one day we might observe a close encounter of the nasty kind. I would not be surprised if it eventually is determined that hoards of these asteroids and comets have impacted us in the past and come in groups as each of the nearby star ejection events during their births reach our distance. Since planetary systems stabilize in a few million years from what I have read, the ejections and resulting collisions should occur during relatively short historical time frames. It would be interesting to calculate how far one of these hoards reaches in a billion years and compare that to the distance between forming stars. Perhaps someone needs a hobby? :-) Dave
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. The world is full of people without integrity. In academia, high mighty professors engage in all kinds of unethical behavior, such as plagiarism. They reject papers from young researchers during peer-review, and then steal the ideas. That's how they got high mighty. Scientists have the notion that they are especially honest and they must be truthful because the scientific method always works in the end, and falsehoods or errors will be found out. I have seen no evidence for this. Scientists get away with lying more often people in many other professions do. Programmers, farmers and even bankers are more honest, in my experience. I think Garwin is being disingenuous. I would also point to the Upton Sinclair quote Axil noted: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
*New Energy Times has just learned that, on Sept. 27, 2013, the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) quietly announced a funding opportunity for low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research, among other areas.* Hey, that was my 59th birthday. How nice! On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/01/03/u-s-department-of-energy-invites-submission-of-lenr-proposals/
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. Yes. That leaves disingenuous, as I said. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Yup. These days Peter Hagelstein sounds almost as cynical as you do. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
I hope you are wrong in this case Jed. To intentionally delay the introduction of LENR products and the wonders that they will release is criminal! Many lives hang in the balance. We may harbor ill will towards Garwin and Lewis, but I find it difficult to believe that they are of that low caliber. It did anger me to view that early meeting where Lewis attempted to ridicule PF by making unsupported claims about their techniques and data. His behavior was more like I would expect from a bully instead of an experienced scientist. Surely you do not believe that he was attacking them just to ensure his job security. I gathered that the attack was due to his belief that the pair was incompetent and their procedures were amateurish. It would have served everyone better had Lewis taken time to discuss his questions in private with the guys instead of that public forum. This is especially true since Lewis apparently did not realize the quality of the work PF performed. If the hot fusion scientists actually made an effort to derail the cold fusion work while knowing it was valid they should all be immediately fired and disgraced. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but to me your integrity is important and I would rather find a new job due to mine being eliminated by a new discovery than to deny that discovery. I will loose all respect for these guys if what you say is true. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 7:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. The world is full of people without integrity. In academia, high mighty professors engage in all kinds of unethical behavior, such as plagiarism. They reject papers from young researchers during peer-review, and then steal the ideas. That's how they got high mighty. Scientists have the notion that they are especially honest and they must be truthful because the scientific method always works in the end, and falsehoods or errors will be found out. I have seen no evidence for this. Scientists get away with lying more often people in many other professions do. Programmers, farmers and even bankers are more honest, in my experience. I think Garwin is being disingenuous. I would also point to the Upton Sinclair quote Axil noted: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
Here is the URL for the full document - ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY ENERGY (ARPA-E) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPEN INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN ENERGY-RELATED APPLIED SCIENCE (OPEN IDEAS) Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity No. DE-FOA-0001002 CFDA Number 81.135 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf PREFACE This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is intended to provide rapid support to revolutionary applied energy research (Studies) that may lead to new ARPA-E programs to develop transformational and disruptive energy technologies. Studies are defined as single-phase efforts of durations less than 12 months and cost less than $500,000. Awards will be issued through Grants Jed Rothwell wrote: See: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/01/03/u-s-department-of-energy-invites-submission-of-lenr-proposals/
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Its hard to understand why these guys didn't just meet up individually and feel out their concerns. I know that at some point the normative pressures are so great that if anyone so much as whispers something in private that might be construed as defection in from the ranks, that it would immediately call for a hue and cry -- but it just seems incredible to me that the normative pressures were *that* intense. I mean self-preservation instincts should kick in with something more than Goodstein's mealy-mouthed review which will not really protect him and, indeed, could draw scrutinizing attention to him in the event that the truth breaks free. Even someone like Lewis could have, once he saw evidence that forewarned him he had contributed to a catastrophic institutional failure, done something as innocuous as try to run an experiment that demonstrated the errors he purported FP made. He could even have deliberately done something wrong in the paper that, during peer review, would have caused it to never achieve publication and at least he could have pointed to his attempt to actually do legitimate science. Moreover, this could have brought him into contact with other doubters of the theocracy's catechism -- all playing devil's advocate of course! Once you get enough of these devils advocates together its simple enough for them to get the critical mass necessary to invoke Ramsey as protector of their heresy, so long as they all came out in unison with their declaration that some more serious work needed to be done to something other than address empirical results with theoretic objections. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the conventional energy industries, all of which involve billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. The system is simply protecting itself and Garwin has a self-interest to play along. Fleischmann did not play along and was punished. Koonin et al. played along and were rewarded. The message is clear. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: He should have confidence in what he has seen, but I can think of other things that one might see on fleeting occasions but still have reservations. I suppose UFO's, ghosts, and etc. fall into that category. I think it was Garwin who described it as fleeting, like a UFO. This is a mischaracterization. As McKubre said, it is neither small nor fleeting. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf My point is that if Garwin agrees the noise level is 50 mW, and the signal is 500 to 1000 mW -- as he said -- then the various reasons he gave to doubt the results are not large enough to make a significant difference. The first thing he mentioned, the 3% overall excess heat, is nonsense. It is 3% overall but at time it was 30% and at other times it was over 100% of input. It was never negative, so there was no energy storage. The 3% is not a valid reason to question the results. Garwin is an experienced scientist. He should understand
RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler's 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn't know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler's 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler's honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China's recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties. But a modest financial boost never the less. (I love watching the movie: The Right Stuff.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
Happby delayed B'Day Terry, Don't let your cat's mistake one of your peg legs for a scratching post. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
Since Three Mile Island and bolstered by the other periodic nuclear based disasters, the nuclear industry (aka the cult of the neutron) has been increasingly embattled by the green technologies and a lack of political support. They hate the greens and the greens hate them. More broadly, the nuclear engineer is hostile to any non-nuclear energy technology that is a threat to his field, his educational investment, and his livelihood. For example, any advance in the solar panel of a wind mill is subject to ridicule and negative propaganda, the facts be dammed. They see the decline in their prospects as a lack of propaganda skills to support their profession. From the perspective of an uninterested observer I have learned from firsthand experience, these guys are the most reactionary and intolerant out of all the LENR antagonists. Their zealotry in their positions are perplexing in its religious intensity and their position is based on unwavering faith. Both their education and their interest speak against the possibility that LENR could be real in any way shape or form. And as far as arrogance goes, it is an inbred prejudice and confidence in their intellectual superiority that is almost universal in that profession and very deeply rooted. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its hard to understand why these guys didn't just meet up individually and feel out their concerns. I know that at some point the normative pressures are so great that if anyone so much as whispers something in private that might be construed as defection in from the ranks, that it would immediately call for a hue and cry -- but it just seems incredible to me that the normative pressures were *that* intense. I mean self-preservation instincts should kick in with something more than Goodstein's mealy-mouthed review which will not really protect him and, indeed, could draw scrutinizing attention to him in the event that the truth breaks free. Even someone like Lewis could have, once he saw evidence that forewarned him he had contributed to a catastrophic institutional failure, done something as innocuous as try to run an experiment that demonstrated the errors he purported FP made. He could even have deliberately done something wrong in the paper that, during peer review, would have caused it to never achieve publication and at least he could have pointed to his attempt to actually do legitimate science. Moreover, this could have brought him into contact with other doubters of the theocracy's catechism -- all playing devil's advocate of course! Once you get enough of these devils advocates together its simple enough for them to get the critical mass necessary to invoke Ramsey as protector of their heresy, so long as they all came out in unison with their declaration that some more serious work needed to be done to something other than address empirical results with theoretic objections. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Hi Dave, I also would rather not believe people in such influential positions would be so cynical and self-serving to reject CF based only on their self interest. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing they could be so stupid to ignore the evidence. I'm sure their training in physics makes the rejection easier, but I would hope not that easy, at least not in the face of such overwhelming the evidence. But then, we see how Congress acts and both explanations of their behavior look plausible. Ed On Jan 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, David Roberson wrote: Hello Ed, Although your take on the subject might be the correct one, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone with integrity would act in that manner. My suspicion is that these guys actually believe exactly what they have stated. All of their training in physics makes LENR appear impossible and they certainly must think that some obscure error has been made by the labs that reported excess heat. They harbor the idea that one day the truth will be found and all of the nonsense(their belief) about cold fusion will go away. They just did not have adequate time at the lab site to uncover the errors. Can you imagine how ignorant these guys will appear in the future when LENR is accepted? I am sure they feel the same way about our misguided prospects. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent Jed, while your descriptions might explain Garwin's behavior toward LENR. I think another explanation is more likely. Garwin and the other high level skeptics are not stupid and they are not ignorant. They know that CF has a potential to disrupt both the hot fusion program as well as the
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
It is a little hard to find the actual reference. It says low-energy nuclear reactions on page 7, Figure 3, item 3.6. Here is the URL for the full document - ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY – ENERGY (ARPA-E) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPEN INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN ENERGY-RELATED APPLIED SCIENCE (OPEN IDEAS) Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity No. DE-FOA-0001002 CFDA Number 81.135 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties. But a modest financial boost never the less. (I love watching the movie: “The Right Stuff.”) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
Jed, I think the phrase low-energy nuclear reactions must have been inspired by current claims. On p.5, under the PROGRAM OVERVIEW, it states - This announcement is purposely broad in scope to encourage the submission of the most innovative, out-of-the-box ideas in energy technology. Since the first law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, i.e. it can never be created or destroyed, our principal concern is with the conversion of energy into useful energy or maximizing usable energy (exergy). Useful energy can take many forms including: radiant energy from lights, electrical energy for appliances, thermal energy to heat homes, mechanical energy for transportation, chemical energy in the form of food, and energy used to make products. From the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of a system cannot decrease when converting energy from one form to another (¦¤S ¡Ý 0), the end effect being that all useful energy humans consume ultimately results in the production of heat that is radiated into space, except for a few exceptions such as the energy embedded in products. It is therefore our endeavor to identify technologies that enable the efficient and cost-effective conversion between or within the various different forms of energy (Figure 2) while minimizing exergy destruction. Within this general framework, ARPA-E seeks transformative ideas that enable the most efficient, economical, sustainable, and environmentally benign conversion of energy while minimizing exergy destruction. On p.8, item 3 of section AREAS SPECIFICALLY NOT OF INTEREST excludes - (Projects which)Are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates a law of thermodynamics) Most current LENR theories do not violate the conservation laws. So, I believe they are eligible under these criteria. Hopefully, the submissions will be made public, along with the reasons for the awards or denials. -- LP Jed Rothwell wrote: It is a little hard to find the actual reference. It says low-energy nuclear reactions on page 7, Figure 3, item 3.6. Here is the URL for the full document - ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY ¨C ENERGY (ARPA-E) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OPEN INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN ENERGY-RELATED APPLIED SCIENCE (OPEN IDEAS) Announcement Type: Initial Announcement Funding Opportunity No. DE-FOA-0001002 CFDA Number 81.135 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf
Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get (unethically) silent
The safest course is to take Garwin and Lewis and the others at their word and to limit consideration to what was said and written. One can have one's suspicions about their genuine motives, but this is only speculation in the final analysis. Remember that Pons's lawyer sent a stiff letter to Michael Salamon demanding a retraction of a paper by him and others at the University of Utah when they got a null result. That is not the normal behavior of academics working in an academic context. There was a series of exchanges between Pons and Fleischmann with a team at MIT establishing to nearly everyone's satisfaction that something funky had happened with the gamma spectrum that was submitted as one line of evidence for neutrons with the original 1989 note, as well as problems with a second peak that was provided as a replacement. Petrasso stuck to the explanation that they must have seen some kind of experimental artifact, but he was surely tempted to draw more serious conclusions. Pons and Fleischmann had used a health dosimeter to measure neutrons despite having had access, should they have wanted it, to faculty in the physics department who could have carried out the difficult measurements and determine whether there was artifact or not; Jones offered similar help, which they did not follow up on. Presumably Fleischmann and Pons were so concerned not to give away some important secret that they dared not involve anyone else, and instead carried out procedures of their own devising to look for evidence completely outside of their field, for it would have been slipshod indeed if it had simply not occurred to them to seek out help. There was a table in the 1989 paper in which values for the power they saw had been silently extrapolated onto a different scale from the relatively small values actually observed in the experiments to much larger ones. This silent extrapolation was only discovered later on by others after some investigative work. Pons and Fleischmann left off Marvin Hawkins as the third author of the paper, even though Hawkins had done a lot of the lab work on which the paper was based. Pons and Fleischmann announced their discovery at a news conference prior to having gone through any kind of peer review. They were very circumspect about how they had gotten their results, and there was insufficient information in their paper for others to really know all of what they had done. For the first few weeks, most people had to rely on faxes of the paper and on news clippings, because Pons and Fleischmann were intentionally hard to get information out of. Fleischmann, an electrochemist, suggested that the reason they were seeing the excess heat was that deuterium nuclei were being squeezed together due to the close spacing in the palladium lattice. Pons and Fleischmann tried to go directly to congress and get funding instead of going through the normal grant-making agencies, a step that was predictably perceived as underhanded. In retrospect, there are mitigating factors behind many of these details. But it is not hard to see how some of the more skeptical folks could draw the conclusion that Pons and Fleischmann were either up to something or at least were not careful in their work. Whatever happened in 1989, it was not normal, boring science. To my mind Pons and Fleischmann were uncareful and made some glaring mistakes, and this caught some scientific gatekeepers off guard. The latter reacted swiftly and harshly, and then found it hard to walk back their position when more evidence came to light. They had overreacted so much that to fully retract what they had said would be to risk their credibility in a field where mistakes are poorly tolerated. The conflict of interest that this situation gave rise to prevented them from pursuing the matter with enough vigor to ever fully convince themselves that they had jumped to conclusions. This might be dishonesty or a lack of integrity or something else very bad, or it might be normal human behavior. At the present time, each scientist is ultimately responsible for his or her own conclusions and has to make decisions about whether or not to look beyond all of the initial distractions. Eric
