RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated
We dont know when the picture has been taken. It could be that the picture is taken just after the electrical power switch off. (After ~21:05 see figure 6) _ From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] Sent: lundi 29 décembre 2014 23:01 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated It is interesting that in figure 4 of the report the heating coils wrapped around the Al2O3 cylinder appear dark. This suggests that the inside of the cylinder is hotter than the coils. http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: And how do we even know this is cold fusion? There is no chemical fuel in the cell, so assuming the heat is real, cold fusion is the only likely source of heat. Also, it resembles many other cold fusion reactors. I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. No, I am not. Anyone familiar with the cold fusion literature will see that I'm not. Evidently you have not read it and you know nothing about it, so you make simple mistake such as this one. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... We do not yet know what sort of ash Ni-H cold fusion reactions produce. If Storms is correct, the ash is deuterium which is impossible to detect with this configuration. I will say, though Jed, kudos for expressing such confidence in an experiment so easily replicated. You are completely wrong again. I have repeatedly said I'm only assuming that the measurements are correct and that this is cold fusion. Assuming in this context means the statement is conditional, or hypothetical; i.e. suppose to be the case, without proof. You really are putting your reputation and credibility on the line here in a way that is very impressive. I am not doing that at all. You claim near-ESP ability to understand and predict of other people's perceptions -- to within 1%! -- yet you do not even recognize that a clearly stated assumption means I put no credibility at stake. I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Mark-- For some reason I have not received Axil's comments, however, the definition of coherence needs to be clarified. I have always thought that coherence means that a quantum system exists of various matter with one quantum state and a single wave function. In a BEC there is only only wave function that exists at a time. That batch of matter--the BEC--acts like a single particle of matter. Its coupling is with other wave functions (associated with other matter or EM fields) that overlap and may or may not change its wave function. EM fields can be dynamic and moving field like in a photon or static fields like that associated with a group of static charges or coordinated moving charges. The idea of a strong pumping mechanism IMO means that the effective coupling happens when quantum state transitions (new wave functions) of the BEC change rapidly. Do these ideas differ from your concept. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:55 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Axil, A few of your statements may not be entirely true, depending on the prevailing conditions… “Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC fed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached.” The coherence that I’m referring to, of any significant scale, is highly unlikely in condensed matter above a few K. Inside a void in a crystal lattice, is entirely a different thing. If you’re referring to a BEC inside a void or microcavity, then I’m ok with the above statements… Assume you already have a BEC consisting of 100 Cs atoms… all of their wave functions are coherent. Now introduce a single photon of heat. That photon will be absorbed by *only a single atom*, thus, changing its wave function and vibrational amplitude. It’s wave function is now somewhat discordant with the remaining 99 atoms. From here, there are a couple of possibilities: 1) the single atom sheds a photon which is then absorbed by one of the other 99 atoms. This process can go on for however long until the photon gets shed and exits the BEC entirely. 2) if the heat energy is enough, the wave function is so discordant that the atom gets ejected from the BEC before it can shed the photon. 3) ? The more coherence between a set of waves, the stronger the coupling between them; the more discordant, the weaker the coupling. -mark iverson From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:30 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf Because of the vacuum energy, a plasma of virtual electron positron pairs exists in the space between two subatomic particles. Mesons form as excitons in this plasma. This is where pions come from in the nucleus that bind protons and neutrons together in a mutual pion mediated transmutation dance. I suspect the same plasma formation happens in larger cavities and is a direct result of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC feed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Dave: If my hypothesis is correct as to what the conditions are like in a void/microcavity, then looking at atoms in the void as ‘billiard balls’ colliding and rebounding as you describe, is I believe inaccurate; at least once the atoms shed their heat energy, their wave functions will overlap and become a BEC. I.e., the less heat energy, the less the atom behaves as a billiard ball and more like an oscillating fluid… Also, there will likely be some element of an E-field/B-field inside the void, and that will physically orient the motion of any atoms inside… Wish I could be a fly on the void wall! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that
RE: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
From: Blaze Spinnaker Ø And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... Yes that is wise. Any and all pronouncements from the sidelines should await isotope analysis, since that is the way science works. In fact with no radioactivity, this looks as much like a version of a fractional hydrogen reaction - f/H – as nuclear. Isotope analysis could move it into the LENR camp - but as of now, no conclusion is justified. It will be noted by those who have shown a propensity to jump to conclusions, that the Rossi testing (Lugano) did reportedly turn up anomalous isotopes – and thus, the experiment is reputedly LENR. Since the Parkhomov experiment was based on Rossi, then the “expectation” is for the identical anomalous isotopes to turn up – pure Ni-62 and a warped lithium balance. But that is only an expectation. FWIW - my expectation is different. IMHO - isotope testing will turn up no substantial level of isotope imbalance in either nickel or lithium, especially NOT the pure Ni-62 reportedly found in Lugano. But the bottom line is that without isotope data from Parkhomov, no one should jump to conclusions at this early stage. Jones
[Vo]:Warp Drive in a Garage
My kind of guy! http://m.omaha.com/living/working-toward-a-warp-drive-in-his-garage-lab-omahan/article_b6489acf-5622-5419-ac18-0c44474da9c9.html?mode=jqm
[Vo]:hope of progress- get stronger
Dear Friends, Some positive info here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/lenr-info-for-december-30-2014.html I have a feeling that more will come, even in this year. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated
Good point! From: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:35:31 +0100 We don’t know when the picture has been taken. It could be that the picture is taken just after the electrical power switch off. (After ~21:05 see figure 6) From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] Sent: lundi 29 décembre 2014 23:01 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated It is interesting that in figure 4 of the report the heating coils wrapped around the Al2O3 cylinder appear dark. This suggests that the inside of the cylinder is hotter than the coils. http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Suppose you imagine the atoms as stationary and imagine the cavities as in motion instead. When two cavities collide do they generate heat or destroy heat? Harry On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Dave: If my hypothesis is correct as to what the conditions are like in a void/microcavity, then looking at atoms in the void as ‘billiard balls’ colliding and rebounding as you describe, is I believe inaccurate; at least once the atoms shed their heat energy, their wave functions will overlap and become a BEC. I.e., the less heat energy, the less the atom behaves as a billiard ball and more like an oscillating fluid… Also, there will likely be some element of an E-field/B-field inside the void, and that will physically orient the motion of any atoms inside… Wish I could be a fly on the void wall! -mark *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 9:10 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. And this is how you think lenr science should be done?
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Preferably folks with a history of being able to guess accurately. I refuse to let the fact that no one else has the courage to guess to stop me from doing so. On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I am saying that *IF* X is true, Y and Z follow. IF the measurements are correct, it follows that this is probably cold fusion, and IF it is cold fusion, it will often continue indefinitely until you quench it. And this is how you think lenr science should be done?
[Vo]:Parkhomov has done calibration
Frank Acland was so kind to ask him here is the question + answer. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/ What else could he do? Except minimizing losses through insulation? The aim of that test was to show that there is excess heat. It is. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
You ask an interesting question about temperature due to being in an excited state for an individual atom. I suppose it might be defined in that manner as including both motion and excess stored energy, but most of the time when I consider temperature it is a result of the relative motion of the atoms according to our frame of reference. If the atoms are in the form of hydrogen that has been ionized then the individual protons would come to rest relative to each other periodically. Of course protons are tiny objects relative to the cavities that Mark is considering and plenty of them could be contained within one. They would likely repel each other due to having the same positive charge which would allow the storage of energy among the group. This energy storage would be comparable to energy stored within a spring since it attempts to force the protons apart. The real questions are how close do the protons need to be to each other and for how long of a time frame before a reaction takes place. If you have 4 protons at rest and close together does that encourage a BEC type of reaction? I believe that this is what Mark is thinking, but I may have not understand him well. I still tend to believe that some form of magnetic coupling is the key to LENR, perhaps involving the spins of the particles. So far, I have not seen adequate evidence that BEC reactions have anything to do with LENR. I hope that the mechanism will be understood soon as a consequence of the recent increased replication activity. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 2:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Mark, I see that I was not on the same page as you in this manner. Sorry if I confused your concept. I want to understand what you are referring to by asking a couple of questions. One, are you thinking of the protons(in the case of hydrogen) as being waves instead of particles? If so, would not protons be extremely tiny wave packets due to their large mass? In my estimation this would tend to localize them so that they look more like particles or the billiard balls that you mention. I also wonder about how they would shed the thermal energy when viewed as a packet. In what form does this energy leave the atom? Kinetic energy and momentum can easily be shed to adjacent atoms if particles are involved. How do you take into account that there is repulsion between a number of protons trapped inside a void? I would think that the forces pushing the protons apart would prevent them from having an opportunity to merge their waveforms due to the relatively large distances maintained. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 10:52 am Subject: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Dave: If my hypothesis is correct as to what the conditions are like in a void/microcavity, then looking at atoms in the void as ‘billiard balls’ colliding and rebounding as you describe, is I believe inaccurate; at least once the atoms shed their heat energy, their wave functions will overlap and become a BEC. I.e., the less heat energy, the less the atom behaves as a billiard ball and more like an oscillating fluid… Also, there will likely be some element of an E-field/B-field inside the void, and that will physically orient the motion of any atoms inside… Wish I could be a fly on the void wall! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Harry, if you use the billiard ball model, then the energy and momentum can be conserved. Two cavities begin with a certain amount of energy and momentum before the collision and retain the same amounts after the collision. How the energy and momentum are distributed in the end depends upon the initial system configuration and states. We know billiard ball interactions works well for macro objects, but quantum mechanics theory does a wonderful job of obscuring the behavior of microscopic systems. The trick is to figure out when and how to switch from one system to the other. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 1:16 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Suppose you imagine the atoms as stationary and imagine the cavities as in motion instead. When two cavities collide do they generate heat or destroy heat? Harry On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Dave: If my hypothesis is correct as to what the conditions are like in a void/microcavity, then looking at atoms in the void as ‘billiard balls’ colliding and rebounding as you describe, is I believe inaccurate; at least once the atoms shed their heat energy, their wave functions will overlap and become a BEC. I.e., the less heat energy, the less the atom behaves as a billiard ball and more like an oscillating fluid… Also, there will likely be some element of an E-field/B-field inside the void, and that will physically orient the motion of any atoms inside… Wish I could be a fly on the void wall! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Hi John: To answer your two questions: - Emphatically No - Huh? J I will go into greater detail about what temperature is when replying to Bob’s response… But to answer your second question, what is ‘hot’ ??? That’s an imprecise and relative word… Start out with any atom which is at 0K, in other words, at its lowest energy state. In my model, electrons and protons are an oscillation of some kind. At this lowest energy state, these oscillators will have *very precise* frequencies and phase relationships between them. Here’s another clue as to what this state is like: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-other-weird-materials/ “In Bose-Einstein condensates, for example, “you start with a thin gas of atoms, cool it to incredibly low temperature — nanokelvins — and once you get to this temperature, atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways,” Murayama said. “They have this funny vibrational mode that gives you one Nambu-Goldstone boson, and this gas of atoms starts to become superfluid again so it ***CAN FLOW WITHOUT VISCOSITY FOREVER.***” And this is a MOST important statement to understand what we are dealing with: One characteristic of states with a low Nambu-Goldstone boson number is that very little energy is required to perturb the system. Fluids flow freely in superfluids, and **atoms vibrate forever in Bose-Einstein condensates with just a slight nudge.*** These are CLUES as to what we are really dealing with when it comes to atoms/electrons/protons when NOT complicated by heat… heat is NOT the norm in the universe. This is where we should have started when trying to come up with theories to describe atoms and the subatomic particles… however, living in a world bathed in heat from the sun, our theories had to deal with the disorder caused by a multitude of heat quanta jumping around from atom to atom like a hot potatoes game; each person is an atom, and the hot potatoes are the heat quanta… My goal with Dr. Storms, and with The Collective, is to get an accurate (or at least better) picture/understanding of what the ‘conditions’ are inside the NAE/voids/microcavities. I would wager that it is very different from what most are thinking… and if I’m right, then trying to apply modern mainstream theories to how atoms are behaving inside the NAE is not going to be successful. It’s a very different universe in there, with a very different set of ‘rules’… -mark iverson From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
My argument though would be that maybe rather than having zero temperature, maybe quantum effects occurs due to enhancing the power of the quantum vacuum. Consider that what we have here is in a sense a signal from the quantum and noise from temperature. If we lower the temperature, the noise is reduced to the point that the signal allows something extraordinary. But what if the signal is being increased? If the energy of the quantum vacuum is being enhanced sufficiently, then the signal might overpower the temperature noise even at very high temperatures. IMO this is far more likely since I know that such conditioning of the vacuum is possible. John On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:13 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You ask an interesting question about temperature due to being in an excited state for an individual atom. I suppose it might be defined in that manner as including both motion and excess stored energy, but most of the time when I consider temperature it is a result of the relative motion of the atoms according to our frame of reference. If the atoms are in the form of hydrogen that has been ionized then the individual protons would come to rest relative to each other periodically. Of course protons are tiny objects relative to the cavities that Mark is considering and plenty of them could be contained within one. They would likely repel each other due to having the same positive charge which would allow the storage of energy among the group. This energy storage would be comparable to energy stored within a spring since it attempts to force the protons apart. The real questions are how close do the protons need to be to each other and for how long of a time frame before a reaction takes place. If you have 4 protons at rest and close together does that encourage a BEC type of reaction? I believe that this is what Mark is thinking, but I may have not understand him well. I still tend to believe that some form of magnetic coupling is the key to LENR, perhaps involving the spins of the particles. So far, I have not seen adequate evidence that BEC reactions have anything to do with LENR. I hope that the mechanism will be understood soon as a consequence of the recent increased replication activity. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 2:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Enhancing the power of the quantum vacuum is done by enclosing it within cavity inside of matter. This restriction is squeezing distance to favor energy. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: My argument though would be that maybe rather than having zero temperature, maybe quantum effects occurs due to enhancing the power of the quantum vacuum. Consider that what we have here is in a sense a signal from the quantum and noise from temperature. If we lower the temperature, the noise is reduced to the point that the signal allows something extraordinary. But what if the signal is being increased? If the energy of the quantum vacuum is being enhanced sufficiently, then the signal might overpower the temperature noise even at very high temperatures. IMO this is far more likely since I know that such conditioning of the vacuum is possible. John On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:13 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You ask an interesting question about temperature due to being in an excited state for an individual atom. I suppose it might be defined in that manner as including both motion and excess stored energy, but most of the time when I consider temperature it is a result of the relative motion of the atoms according to our frame of reference. If the atoms are in the form of hydrogen that has been ionized then the individual protons would come to rest relative to each other periodically. Of course protons are tiny objects relative to the cavities that Mark is considering and plenty of them could be contained within one. They would likely repel each other due to having the same positive charge which would allow the storage of energy among the group. This energy storage would be comparable to energy stored within a spring since it attempts to force the protons apart. The real questions are how close do the protons need to be to each other and for how long of a time frame before a reaction takes place. If you have 4 protons at rest and close together does that encourage a BEC type of reaction? I believe that this is what Mark is thinking, but I may have not understand him well. I still tend to believe that some form of magnetic coupling is the key to LENR, perhaps involving the spins of the particles. So far, I have not seen adequate evidence that BEC reactions have anything to do with LENR. I hope that the mechanism will be understood soon as a consequence of the recent increased replication activity. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 2:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov has done calibration
peter...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Acland was so kind to ask him here is the question + answer. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/ That's great! Thank you Cousin Peter, and thanks to Frank Acland too. The e-cat World article says he found a heat balance to within 10%. That's fine. That is about what I expected. It says: Measurements with the electro heater which isn’t containing fuel at the power up to 1000 W were taken. The quantity of the consumed electric power after boiling of water and the amount of heat necessary for heating and evaporation added for preservation of initial level, coincided within 10%. What else could he do? Except minimizing losses through insulation? There is no need to do anything else. The excess heat is well above 10% so the uncertainty does not matter. Good job Parkhomov! This gives me much more confidence in the results. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
*Effects of Spin-Dependent Polariton-Polariton Interactions in Semiconductor Microcavities: Spin Rings, Bright Spatial Solitons and Soliton Patterns* http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3872/1/SICH_eThesis.pdf A polariton BEC is a different animal from a matter based BEC. It involves a process of energy flows and balances. These two types a BEC are not comparable as explained below. See chapter 1.2 The polaritons have a lifetime that is typically comparable to or shorter than thermalization times, giving them an inherently non-equilibrium nature. Nevertheless, they exhibit many of the features that would be expected of equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs). The non-equilibrium nature of the system raises fundamental questions as to what it means for a system to be a BEC, and introduces new physics beyond that seen in other macroscopically coherent systems. One thing I learned from this reference is that the spin of a dark polariton is 2. That is a lot of spin. A dark poloriton is in superposition with holes rather than electrons. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:09 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi John: To answer your two questions: - Emphatically No - Huh? J I will go into greater detail about what temperature is when replying to Bob’s response… But to answer your second question, what is ‘hot’ ??? That’s an imprecise and relative word… Start out with any atom which is at 0K, in other words, at its lowest energy state. In my model, electrons and protons are an oscillation of some kind. At this lowest energy state, these oscillators will have **very precise** frequencies and phase relationships between them. Here’s another clue as to what this state is like: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-other-weird-materials/ “In Bose-Einstein condensates, for example, “you start with a thin gas of atoms, cool it to incredibly low temperature — nanokelvins — and once you get to this temperature, atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways,” Murayama said. “They have this funny vibrational mode that gives you one Nambu-Goldstone boson, and this gas of atoms starts to become superfluid again so it ***CAN FLOW WITHOUT VISCOSITY FOREVER.***” And this is a MOST important statement to understand what we are dealing with: One characteristic of states with a low Nambu-Goldstone boson number is that very little energy is required to perturb the system. Fluids flow freely in superfluids, and **atoms vibrate forever in Bose-Einstein condensates with just a slight nudge.*** These are CLUES as to what we are really dealing with when it comes to atoms/electrons/protons when NOT complicated by heat… heat is NOT the norm in the universe. This is where we should have started when trying to come up with theories to describe atoms and the subatomic particles… however, living in a world bathed in heat from the sun, our theories had to deal with the disorder caused by a multitude of heat quanta jumping around from atom to atom like a hot potatoes game; each person is an atom, and the hot potatoes are the heat quanta… My goal with Dr. Storms, and with The Collective, is to get an accurate (or at least better) picture/understanding of what the ‘conditions’ are inside the NAE/voids/microcavities. I would wager that it is very different from what most are thinking… and if I’m right, then trying to apply modern mainstream theories to how atoms are behaving inside the NAE is not going to be successful. It’s a very different universe in there, with a very different set of ‘rules’… -mark iverson *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 11:04 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Or, you need one person who makes the effort to understand the technical issues, works hard, and writes a coherent hypothesis that other knowledgeable people agree with. That's called science. It is not a guessing game. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
It is hard for me not to consider that currenbt oil price crash is linked to LENR, but I agree that the losers will desperately ignore their fate http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf the more their fate is certain, the more their peers can punish them, the more they will deny the reality. on the opposite those who are immune to critics, who can benefit, will embrace the reality immediately. one possibilities is that some people, speculators, tycoon, who are aware of tha blackswan bet on LENR, and that others around just react. some rationalize by finding white swan explanations (shales)... problem is that all media and academies cannot consider LENR as it is a forbidden hypothesis. but markets don't care, if some anonylous trader is aware of LENR his question is just how long is his horizon... if it is few days like most tradersn he will not care... if he is a lonterm investor, he will try to enjoy high price of oil until he fear that some of his mate change their strategy too... one rule of traders can maintain the status quo, it is that you should not play against the market (the groupthink) even if you know the reality. Investors are not in that principle 2014-12-30 4:35 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If they've repro'd LENR or whatever in their labs, I am pretty sure even the Saudi's can see more than 1 move ahead in chess. Only if they have heard of this, and they believe it, which I strongly doubt. I think saying this is not connected is saying you don't really believe that anyone has actually achieved anything significant yet. In my case, I think that what has been achieved in cold fusion is the most significant technology since the invention of fire. However, I think there is no connection to the price of oil because very few people realize what has been done in cold fusion. I have spoken with people in the oil business and other conventional energy systems. They have no knowledge of this. Even even if they did know, I am pretty sure they would dismiss it. That's human nature. People do not want to seriously consider things that will bankrupt them and end their careers. Here is an example from W. Isaacson's book The Innovators which I am just reading. In 1973, the head of a Xerox research facility in Webster, NY told one of the people from Xerox PARC, The computer will never be as important to society as the copier. (p. 294) - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
In this email I mull over and ponder things, if this strikes you as too long, please just read the below *bolded* and *italicized* *sentence*. And to clarify, by enhancing the signal in the quantum vacuum, I mean enhancing the wave function of the particle. To use boats as an analogy, enhancing the signal might be achieved by either increasing the density of the medium (water) around the boat so the wave from that boat has more substance. Or increasing the degree to which the boat creates waves, either by increasing the degree of disturbance the boat creates, or the increasing the disturbance it radiates. But what is a wave function anyway??? Is a wave function not the degree of noise in the quantum field? And degree of disorder. If so, maybe it is that the temperature of space (zero point) must be made to exceed the temperature of matter? Or exceed it by a certain degree. Obviously the key is that the quantum phenomena gain in influence. But the question is what is going on in the quantum medium for this to occur, if we were to look at a quantum probability wave, are we looking to increase the order or the disorder? A collapsed wave has more than probability, it has certainty (dependant on opinion on the Copenhagen interpretation). So are we seeking a strong wave, but a strong wave must have a high degree of uncertainty, and a low probability of being in any specific location. *Huh, is it that heat causes collision, and collision collapses probability?* *Maybe that is a better way of looking at it?* That makes so much sense, is this something that is widely known and I have just discovered what I missed reading about? Or a fresh insight? It is worth noting that while often ignored due to the fact that it points to a different paradigm, it does seem that consciousness can effect quantum level events. Now consciousness must be occurring as some kind of wave in the quantum medium, which is then able to effect the wave function of a particle. There must be less woo-woo examples, but could the same enhancement/influence of the quantum background not be produced by a CAT and thereby increasing whatever a wave function is? John
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Well, your idea of science is to make speculative leaps / assumptions. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Also, as I have explained many many times my one estimate is just one guess of the jelly beans in the jelkybeanjar. You need a lot of guessers to get something accurate. Or, you need one person who makes the effort to understand the technical issues, works hard, and writes a coherent hypothesis that other knowledgeable people agree with. That's called science. It is not a guessing game. - Jed
[Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVz-6XGBePM
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In fact with no radioactivity, this looks as much like a version of a fractional hydrogen reaction - f/H – as nuclear. Isotope analysis could move it into the LENR camp - but as of now, no conclusion is justified. There is never much radioactivity from these systems. You cannot draw conclusions from that, other than the fact that it ain't plasma fusion. Based on McKubre's Law of the Conservation of Miracles I assume that all of these systems operate by the same physical principles. If this works by the Mills effect, they all do. I do not think it is likely there are two totally unrelated heretofore undiscovered methods of getting massive amounts of anomalous heat from hydrides. It will be noted by those who have shown a propensity to jump to conclusions, that the Rossi testing (Lugano) did reportedly turn up anomalous isotopes – and thus, the experiment is reputedly LENR. Even if he did not turn up anomalous isotopes, or if the isotopes turn out to be a mistake, I am confident that every expert in LENR would agree that if the results are real, they are LENR. But the bottom line is that without isotope data from Parkhomov, no one should jump to conclusions at this early stage. That's silly. The system looks like several other nanoparticle cold fusion systems such as Mizuno's and Arata's. It is not jumping to conclusions to assume that it is the same phenomenon. Nature often produces phenomena that look different on the surface but are fundamentally the same thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov has done calibration
This gives me much more confidence in the results. Noted!I am highly skeptical however. I think it's great MFMP is taking the time to try to reproduce this, which they definitely should, but I think expectations should be that it's very unlikely anything will result of this. I think everyone should also realize science is about trying things, even if they're a low chance of happening. If something only has a 5% chance of working and you do about 20 of them, you'll hit upon something. The way everyone is talking about this experiment I think is very immature and far to exuberant.I'm sure 100s of labs have tried to heat up this combination of powdered metals before. There's this great robotic system that tries out 1000s of medicines that have been approved by the FDA for dozens of different diseases.The chance is so small that'll it work, but because it's a robot it can try so many different ones. Eventually it finds something that works and is already approved by the FDA. That is science.Having confidence because some random joe from russia creates a webpage with graphs that we have recreated cold fusion - is not. It's gullible and naive and when nothing comes of this you're going to look very foolish. A lot of people are also going to be less inclined to try the next thing too, even though they should. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: peter...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Acland was so kind to ask him here is the question + answer. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/ That's great! Thank you Cousin Peter, and thanks to Frank Acland too. The e-cat World article says he found a heat balance to within 10%. That's fine. That is about what I expected. It says: Measurements with the electro heater which isn’t containing fuel at the power up to 1000 W were taken. The quantity of the consumed electric power after boiling of water and the amount of heat necessary for heating and evaporation added for preservation of initial level, coincided within 10%. What else could he do? Except minimizing losses through insulation? There is no need to do anything else. The excess heat is well above 10% so the uncertainty does not matter. Good job Parkhomov! This gives me much more confidence in the results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov has done calibration
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: This gives me much more confidence in the results. Noted!I am highly skeptical however. I think it's great MFMP is taking the time to try to reproduce this, which they definitely should, but I think expectations should be that it's very unlikely anything will result of this. Based on what? Where the hell do you come up with these expectations? More throwing darts in the dark? Your statements here show that you do not know the first thing about cold fusion! Or calorimetry, or any other relevant discipline. You have not made a single technical assertion in the last several messages. All you talk about is your own magic hocus-pocus ESP ability to make assertions about the truth or falsity of experimental results without *any consideration* of the technical details. Without even mentioning them! How can you be highly skeptical about a subject you don't know the first thing about? That is like me being highly skeptical of quantum mechanics. I am sick of your blather. I expect other people are sick of hearing that I am sick of you. So I will add you to my auto-delete file, to eliminate this irritation. - Jed
[Vo]:Mourning zunzun.com's passing
zunzun.com is gone due to its owner, James Phillips, going partially blind and therefore being unable to maintain it. For those who never used zunzun.com (probably everyone reading this) it let you paste a bunch of rows of text, each containing two (or even 3) numbers, into a text box, and then it provided a best function fit with full statistics. I used it a _lot_ because it was one of the two most useful online tools I've ever found: the most useful being Calchemy, a units calculator that does automatic solving by dimensional analysis http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/, and even it has been degraded from what it once was. People just don't seem to 'get' really good tools.
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]: FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Hi Bob, RE: not receiving Axil’s response to mine… I’m beginning to wonder if this is happening more often than we realize… if you still haven’t rcvd his post, let me know and I’ll fwd it to you. RE: “Do these ideas differ from your concept” Not sure how to answer that… It’s hard to discuss this topic when we really don’t know *exactly* what an electron is… yes, we have (abstract) mathematical models which allow us to describe and predict things with good accuracy, but there are still aspects which are not well understood. The concept of electron ‘shells’ is merely a result of the *limitations* of the instruments/technology we used to ‘observe’ or measure electron behavior. My hypothetical models have physical properties; geometry; physical orientations. Read this article to get an idea of just what temperature is, and how quanta of energy are absorbed and shed by individual atoms/ions… http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/quantum-022311.cfm First one ion is jiggling a little and the other is not moving at all; then the jiggling motion switches to the other ion. The smallest amount of energy you could possibly see is moving between the ions, explains first author Kenton Brown, a NIST post-doctoral researcher. We can also tune the coupling, which affects how fast they exchange energy and to what degree. We can turn the interaction on and off. Visualize what is happening in the above experiment until it becomes ingrained in how you view the atomistic universe… Heat is the degree of ‘shaking’ of individual atoms because they are ‘out-of-balance’ internally. Heat quanta cause the internal oscillators to be out of resonance with each other, thus their momentum vectors no longer balance, causing physical oscillation of the entire atom… sure, the atom wants to shed those quanta and return to resonance, but if it’s an atom in any larger assemblage, and not far from a source of heat/radiation, then any quanta it sheds is offset by absorption of some other atom’s shed heat quanta… so all the atoms in a given assemblage have, at any given instance in time, the same number of heat quanta, and that is what we measure as ‘heat’. At this point in the discussion, assume there are NO atoms in the void/NAE, what are the possibilities as to what’s going in inside? - a perfect vacuum, at 0K (or CMB?) - are there any E-fields or B-fields present??? - if the walls of the void are shedding heat (as IR photons) into the void, in large enough quantities, then one might be able to say that the void’s vacuum environment has some kind of energy level equivalent to the energy of the photons, but it is NOT in the form of atoms/matter; it is purely photonic in nature. - what else could it be like inside that void??? -mark From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Mark-- For some reason I have not received Axil's comments, however, the definition of coherence needs to be clarified. I have always thought that coherence means that a quantum system exists of various matter with one quantum state and a single wave function. In a BEC there is only only wave function that exists at a time. That batch of matter--the BEC--acts like a single particle of matter. Its coupling is with other wave functions (associated with other matter or EM fields) that overlap and may or may not change its wave function. EM fields can be dynamic and moving field like in a photon or static fields like that associated with a group of static charges or coordinated moving charges. The idea of a strong pumping mechanism IMO means that the effective coupling happens when quantum state transitions (new wave functions) of the BEC change rapidly. Do these ideas differ from your concept. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:55 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Axil, A few of your statements may not be entirely true, depending on the prevailing conditions… “Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC fed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached.” The coherence that I’m referring to, of any significant scale, is highly unlikely in condensed matter above a few K. Inside a void in a crystal lattice, is entirely a different thing. If you’re referring to a BEC inside a void or microcavity, then I’m ok with the above statements… Assume you already have a BEC consisting of 100 Cs
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Hi Dave! Hope all is well in Robersonville… Now to answer your questions… “are you thinking of the protons (in the case of hydrogen) as being waves instead of particles? If so, would not protons be extremely tiny wave packets due to their large mass? In my estimation this would tend to localize them so that they look more like particles or the billiard balls that you mention.” Yes, some kind of oscillatory entity or medium with a much smaller physical extent than electrons, and thus a much higher frequency of oscillation; orders of magnitude faster oscillations. Ever play ping-pong? Take the ping-pong ball, drop it on the table, and then take the paddle and restrict the balls upper bounce to a smaller and smaller height. What happens??? The frequency of the ball’s bounce increases. Can this analogy be applied to what we are seeing in the difference in oscillatory frequencies between electrons and protons. Something is restricting the physical extent of the oscillating medium/fluid/aether, resulting in a much higher freq’y of oscillation for protons compared to electrons. The range of frequencies at which protons or electrons are oscillating also determines what energy range photons can be absorbed/emitted by those oscillators. Gamma rays pass right thru the electrons as if they weren’t there, to finally interact with the nucleus… IR/visible/UV level photons (much slower frequencies than gamma) interact with electrons. From outside the nucleus, protons most likely *appear* to behave more particle-like, however, I would posit that at their scale, its’ more like superfluid oscillators with some element of coupling between them which we call the strong force. “I also wonder about how they would shed the thermal energy when viewed as a packet. In what form does this energy leave the atom?” I would think that protons, having a much higher frequency of oscillation, do not interact with heat (IR photons); or at least only under very specific conditions (the emission spectrum of hydrogen is the simplest, is it not?). The energy level of photons is a function of their frequency, and IR/Vis/UV photons are *much* more likely to interact with electrons, since there is a close harmonic relationship between them. Is the absorption/emission spectrum of Hydrogen that of hydrogen atom, or the hydrogen ion? If it’s the H-atom, then I would be curious as to whether a proton (i.e., a H ion which has lost its single electron), can interact with IR/Vis/UV light at all… if so, is that interaction direct interaction, or is there something mediating the transfer of energy between the much lower frequency photons and much higher frequency proton oscillator??? “How do you take into account that there is repulsion between a number of protons trapped inside a void? I would think that the forces pushing the protons apart would prevent them from having an opportunity to merge their waveforms due to the relatively large distances maintained.” In a system where atoms OR ions have been cooled down to near 0K, the normal repulsion of like-charges no longer applies, and the BEC forms. A BEC happens spontaneously when the atoms reach a certain temperature. IIRC, one of the articles I referenced in a previous post states that the BEC is formed using Cesium IONS! Thus, once a collection of atoms OR IONS have shed all their heat quanta, the concept of ‘charge’ and attraction/repulsion no longer apply. At least if the atoms/ions are all the same flavor. I’d be curious to see what would happen in a similar experiment using 50 Cs ions and 50 He ions! Would it form two separate BEC ‘globs’, and what kind of interaction would be present between them? I think it safe to say that one has to view the BEC as an oscillating fluid, NOT as billiard balls. I.e., the particle-like nature of the wave-particle duality is no longer operating/present when all heat quanta have been removed from a collection of atoms. I can also see a very simple explanation as to why that is… again involving resonance/discordance. Discordance between two colliding atoms manifests in more billiard-ball like (particle-like) behavior. Thus, it is very unlikely to couple energy from one atom INTO the other atom. Instead, there is a TRANSFER of momentum from one atom to the other, typical of the analogy used in basic physics classes of two billiard balls on a pool table… But transfer of energy from one atom INTO the INTERNAL oscillators of another atom requires at least a close resonant/harmonic relationship. This also may tie in with Frank’s concept of velocity of sound in the nucleus and ‘matching impedances’ and all that. When one considers that any atom higher in the chart than H, is an increasing complexity of internal oscillators, with varying coupling between them, and quanta of energy being absorbed and shed depending on what the instant
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Interesting to speculate if voids in a crystal lattice migrate? And what would happen if two migrating cavities ‘collide’… Would it emit or absorb heat quanta??? At that scale, and considering the localized area of the colliding voids, I could envision a few possibilities. The voids are caused by stresses and impurities in the crystal structure. An internal dislocation (void) likely helps to relieve stress. Given that we’re dealing with QM, your guess is as good as mine as to what would happen… and we could both be right, at least some percentage of the time! J Perhaps the lattice rearranges to, in a sense, make the voids completely disappear, but then reappear at some other location depending on stresses within the lattice… Does it emit/absorb heat? Well, voids by themselves don’t couple/retain heat quanta, so there’s nothing to emit or capable of being absorbed. IR photons might be flying around inside a void creating an ever-changing pattern of constructive/destructive interferences… -mark From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Suppose you imagine the atoms as stationary and imagine the cavities as in motion instead. When two cavities collide do they generate heat or destroy heat? Harry On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:52 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Dave: If my hypothesis is correct as to what the conditions are like in a void/microcavity, then looking at atoms in the void as ‘billiard balls’ colliding and rebounding as you describe, is I believe inaccurate; at least once the atoms shed their heat energy, their wave functions will overlap and become a BEC. I.e., the less heat energy, the less the atom behaves as a billiard ball and more like an oscillating fluid… Also, there will likely be some element of an E-field/B-field inside the void, and that will physically orient the motion of any atoms inside… Wish I could be a fly on the void wall! -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Mark and Dave-- I would say the protons first come together as Cooper pairs. This anti-parallel alignment may be assisted with magnetic fields associated with the cavity. The paired protons never stop as has been suggested, since they never act like a billiard ball in a classical sense. They are merely deflected from each other because of their repulsion. The initial conditions establish the wave function that governs the entire batch of mass energy in the cavity, including any Li nuclei or electrons or photons that may be present. This is what I would call a coherent system. IMO the concept of temperature assumes a RANDOM collision and exchange of energy and momentum in a classical sense. In contrast coherent systems are described by DEFINITE wave functions that may change from time to time with changes in boundary conditions. Thus, an atom being part of a coherent system or a separate coherent system itself, does not have a property, properly termed temperature. Temperature only applies to a COLLECTION of coherent systems and is a continuous parameter, not a parameter made up of quanta. Coherent systems have potential energy in the form of binding energy and kinetic energy as well as linear momentum and spin energy, but no temperature. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals You ask an interesting question about temperature due to being in an excited state for an individual atom. I suppose it might be defined in that manner as including both motion and excess stored energy, but most of the time when I consider temperature it is a result of the relative motion of the atoms according to our frame of reference. If the atoms are in the form of hydrogen that has been ionized then the individual protons would come to rest relative to each other periodically. Of course protons are tiny objects relative to the cavities that Mark is considering and plenty of them could be contained within one. They would likely repel each other due to having the same positive charge which would allow the storage of energy among the group. This energy storage would be comparable to energy stored within a spring since it attempts to force the protons apart. The real questions are how close do the protons need to be to each other and for how long of a time frame before a reaction takes place. If you have 4 protons at rest and close together does that encourage a BEC type of reaction? I believe that this is what Mark is thinking, but I may have not understand him well. I still tend to believe that some form of magnetic coupling is the key to LENR, perhaps involving the spins of the particles. So far, I have not seen adequate evidence that BEC reactions have anything to do with LENR. I hope that the mechanism will be understood soon as a consequence of the recent increased replication activity. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 2:04 am Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVz-6XGBePM
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I thought all they did was calibration. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. The likely suspect is that the glue used to seal the reactor tube failed, allowing a leak of the H2 when the LiAlH4 decomposed. The experiment was shut down because going higher in temperature risked burnout of the dogbone heater coil and the excess heat should already have been seen at a lower temperature than the 1200C core temperature that was achieved. Ryan Hunt is going to try again. We will try to contact Parkhomov to ask what cement he used to seal his reactor. We are also looking at ways to test the seals that we make. Bob Higgins On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, Replication fails. They had the dog bone so hot the steel stand holding it was white hot. But power in was equal to power out. No radiation. I have a hunch that was too hot. As the proverbial shaggy dog was too shaggy, since we are using dog-related images here. - Jed
[Vo]:List of Patents- formerly Classified..now Issued
Greetings Vortx-l. In the morning...will have to look at the topics: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/former-so-2014.pdf Ad Astra 2015, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
As best as I could tell, it looks like this was a dud. Heat in = Heat out. It was frustrating to see. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
It could have been worse, we could have lost heat from the universe On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: As best as I could tell, it looks like this was a dud. Heat in = Heat out. It was frustrating to see. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com'); wrote: I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com');
Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube.
You mean, achieved a device to bring on global cooling?? On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: It could have been worse, we could have lost heat from the universe On Wednesday, December 31, 2014, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: As best as I could tell, it looks like this was a dud. Heat in = Heat out. It was frustrating to see. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I guess I missed some part them. But I never saw a so beautiful metal glow! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
