Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Lennart Thornros]

Harry,
I liked the discussion.
There was much to take from this debate.
Just as important is to change the tax  system and the power distribution.
Obviously a progressive tax system but a smooth progress. Take away all
deductions and tax all type of income equally.
Eliminate all double taxation.
The definition of work needs to be looked upon with reality in mind.
When the garbage workers go on strike it is an emergency after a week or
two.
When the bankers went on strike in Ireland everything went on as usual and
after six months the bankers began work again.
There is work and then there is work.
Finland an Switzerland are considering seriously to implement the idea.
I suppose the US should try at least to look into the issue. We certainly
have a more complicated social system than most European countries.
The debate showed that there are not without problem to implement something
like basic income.
Unfortunately there is a lot of people that think a step wise change would
be good.
It reminds me of the proposal when Sweden went from left to right side
driving in -67; "why don't we start with the trucks?"
We have a tendency to overthink things. In Switzerland they talk about
2,500 CH franken (CHF) per adult and 800 CHF for children.
I think that type of complication will open up for complications.
Anyhow, the debate was good. I think we need something to make things more
equal all over the world.
I think the timing is ripe. Just like all changes it has resistance.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM, H LV  wrote:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kptyk
> BBC audio
> What if governments paid all their citizens a basic income? Whether
> rich or poor, you would receive the same amount of money, and you
> would keep it whether you went out to work and received a salary or
> not. It is an idea that has been around for centuries, but one that
> has been gaining traction in recent times as welfare payments become
> ever more complex and expensive to administer. Proponents also argue
> that it would remove the 'poverty trap' where people are dissuaded
> from seeking work because they would lose their benefits if they did
> so. There is also the issue of machines taking over many of the jobs
> that we all do to earn a living - not just basic manual tasks, but
> increasingly 'intelligent' work that will in the future be carried out
> by robots. Join Owen Bennett Jones and his panel of expert guests as
> they discuss the future of work and how we pay for it. Should we give
> free money to everyone and let robots take the strain?
>
>

[Vo]:Re: doing rock and roll in my add

[Frank Znidarsic]

I play the piano with my left hand, the organ with my right hand, and operate 
the drums with my feet.
Well, what do want with a free app?







http://www.amazon.com/Znidarsic-Science-Books-MIDI-Staff/dp/B0189W31BK/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps=UTF8=1457322586=1-3-catcorr=%22znidarsic+science+books%22


Frank

[Vo]:doing rock and roll in my add

[Frank Znidarsic]

Check out the video.  I play this drums, organ, and piano simultaneously and 
operate the video by myself.  If only my cold fusion experiments had been this 
productive and I could would also sing and market the technology.  




http://www.amazon.com/Znidarsic-Science-Books-MIDI-Staff/dp/B0189W31BK/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps=UTF8=1457322586=1-3-catcorr=%22znidarsic+science+books%22


Frank

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[H LV]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03kptyk
BBC audio
What if governments paid all their citizens a basic income? Whether
rich or poor, you would receive the same amount of money, and you
would keep it whether you went out to work and received a salary or
not. It is an idea that has been around for centuries, but one that
has been gaining traction in recent times as welfare payments become
ever more complex and expensive to administer. Proponents also argue
that it would remove the 'poverty trap' where people are dissuaded
from seeking work because they would lose their benefits if they did
so. There is also the issue of machines taking over many of the jobs
that we all do to earn a living - not just basic manual tasks, but
increasingly 'intelligent' work that will in the future be carried out
by robots. Join Owen Bennett Jones and his panel of expert guests as
they discuss the future of work and how we pay for it. Should we give
free money to everyone and let robots take the strain?

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

[Axil Axil]

A magnetized iron shield is highly promising for bending muons away from
working areas. This method of shielding would be very effective for low
kinetic energy muons that can be easily diverted magnetically.

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://www.quora.com/How-is-muon-radiation-measured​
>
> [quote]Any radiation detector that works on the principle of sensing the
> charge liberated in matter is going to detect muons directly. Geiger
> counters, ion chambers, scintillators, toy cloud chambers, and pocket
> dosimeters all work on this principle, and all respond to muons. In fact,
> all these detectors are very sensitive to muons: if a muon passes through
> or is absorbed in the detector, there is a very high probability that the
> signal it creates will be "counted" by the instrument. The question from a
> dosimetry standpoint is how to interpret this signal in terms of human
> health impact and that is what I will get to in Parts 2-3 below. Continuing
> briefly on the issues of muon detection, although the common types of
> electronic radiation detectors are sensitive to muons, they are not
> selective toward them. To selectively detect muons against a background
> that also contains alpha / beta / gamma radiations from terrestrial
> radioactive decay, one exploits facts such as the exceptional penetrating
> power of energetic muons (which barrel through with a mean energy at the
> Earth's surface of ~2-4 GeV, if we are talking about cosmogenic muons), or
> the particle's characteristic half-life (1.5 microseconds). One approach to
> detecting muons and only muons is to look for coincident signals in two or
> more detectors that are separated by shielding, a flight path of some
> length, or both. In large, dense detectors, there is a reasonable chance of
> stopping the muon and detecting subsequent decay in accordance with the
> 1.5-microsecond half life. Finally, neutron detectors also respond to
> cosmogenic muons. This is because the muon and its daughter radiations have
> enough energy to tear apart stable nuclei in spallation and photonuclear
> reactions with the liberation of neutrons. If you stack lead bricks around
> a neutron detector, the count rate rises rather substantially. Muon
> interactions in the lead are responsible for the secondary neutrons being
> generated. (This effect is generally a nuisance, a source of irregular
> background in low-level neutron counting work.)
>
> 2. Dosimetry of muons
>
> Muons can kill. In principle, they--like all ionizing radiation--can rip
> apart the chemical bonds in the DNA in your cells, causing malignant cells
> to form and multiply, with the result that you die of cancer. (And in large
> enough doses, they could kill you by deterministic effects like acute
> radiation syndrome.) Radiation dosimetry is concerned with calculating the
> risk of such outcomes. Typically, radiation detectors used for dosimetry
> measure the electric charge released in the detector material by the
> radiation. This measurement then must be used to calculate a dosimetric
> quantity of interest. Sometimes we are concerned simply with absorbed dose,
> which is the amount of energy the radiation is depositing in our bodies on
> a mass basis, and energy released in matter is related to charge released
> in matter in an uncomplicated way. However, the risk of death by cancer is
> related to a concept called effective dose--the deposited-energy-per-mass
> dose weighted by a biological factor that accounts for how the particular
> radiation interacts in the body. The weighting factor depends on the type
> of radiation, its energy spectrum, and how densely it ionizes material in
> its path. Muons are interesting in this regard, because they are like
> little explosive-tipped artillery shells. They cause some damage passing
> through your meat, but they do more damage if they are stopped within your
> meat and "explode" (undergo decay, usually to an electron that carries off
> a substantial fraction of the rest mass energy of the muon as its own
> kinetic energy.) What this means for effective dose calculation is that the
> biological weighting factor is HIGH for slower muons that are more likely
> to stop in your meat, but not too different from the weighting factor for
> radioactive decay gamma rays at the high energies that we normally
> experience in the cosmogenic muon flux at Earth's surface. Dosimetric
> instruments that are designed to measure dose from gamma rays are therefore
> ballpark-accurate in measuring dose from muons. A well-made, calibrated,
> properly-used dosimeter that reads in effective dose units like rem or
> Sievert has some quantitative credibility when measuring cosmogenic muon
> radiation.
>
> 3. Your risk of being killed by muons (muicide)
>
> Let's consider an average person living at sea level. Googling "muon flux
> at sea level" returns a number of reasonably-authoritative sources putting
> this quantity at 

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

[Axil Axil]

https://www.quora.com/How-is-muon-radiation-measured​

[quote]Any radiation detector that works on the principle of sensing the
charge liberated in matter is going to detect muons directly. Geiger
counters, ion chambers, scintillators, toy cloud chambers, and pocket
dosimeters all work on this principle, and all respond to muons. In fact,
all these detectors are very sensitive to muons: if a muon passes through
or is absorbed in the detector, there is a very high probability that the
signal it creates will be "counted" by the instrument. The question from a
dosimetry standpoint is how to interpret this signal in terms of human
health impact and that is what I will get to in Parts 2-3 below. Continuing
briefly on the issues of muon detection, although the common types of
electronic radiation detectors are sensitive to muons, they are not
selective toward them. To selectively detect muons against a background
that also contains alpha / beta / gamma radiations from terrestrial
radioactive decay, one exploits facts such as the exceptional penetrating
power of energetic muons (which barrel through with a mean energy at the
Earth's surface of ~2-4 GeV, if we are talking about cosmogenic muons), or
the particle's characteristic half-life (1.5 microseconds). One approach to
detecting muons and only muons is to look for coincident signals in two or
more detectors that are separated by shielding, a flight path of some
length, or both. In large, dense detectors, there is a reasonable chance of
stopping the muon and detecting subsequent decay in accordance with the
1.5-microsecond half life. Finally, neutron detectors also respond to
cosmogenic muons. This is because the muon and its daughter radiations have
enough energy to tear apart stable nuclei in spallation and photonuclear
reactions with the liberation of neutrons. If you stack lead bricks around
a neutron detector, the count rate rises rather substantially. Muon
interactions in the lead are responsible for the secondary neutrons being
generated. (This effect is generally a nuisance, a source of irregular
background in low-level neutron counting work.)

2. Dosimetry of muons

Muons can kill. In principle, they--like all ionizing radiation--can rip
apart the chemical bonds in the DNA in your cells, causing malignant cells
to form and multiply, with the result that you die of cancer. (And in large
enough doses, they could kill you by deterministic effects like acute
radiation syndrome.) Radiation dosimetry is concerned with calculating the
risk of such outcomes. Typically, radiation detectors used for dosimetry
measure the electric charge released in the detector material by the
radiation. This measurement then must be used to calculate a dosimetric
quantity of interest. Sometimes we are concerned simply with absorbed dose,
which is the amount of energy the radiation is depositing in our bodies on
a mass basis, and energy released in matter is related to charge released
in matter in an uncomplicated way. However, the risk of death by cancer is
related to a concept called effective dose--the deposited-energy-per-mass
dose weighted by a biological factor that accounts for how the particular
radiation interacts in the body. The weighting factor depends on the type
of radiation, its energy spectrum, and how densely it ionizes material in
its path. Muons are interesting in this regard, because they are like
little explosive-tipped artillery shells. They cause some damage passing
through your meat, but they do more damage if they are stopped within your
meat and "explode" (undergo decay, usually to an electron that carries off
a substantial fraction of the rest mass energy of the muon as its own
kinetic energy.) What this means for effective dose calculation is that the
biological weighting factor is HIGH for slower muons that are more likely
to stop in your meat, but not too different from the weighting factor for
radioactive decay gamma rays at the high energies that we normally
experience in the cosmogenic muon flux at Earth's surface. Dosimetric
instruments that are designed to measure dose from gamma rays are therefore
ballpark-accurate in measuring dose from muons. A well-made, calibrated,
properly-used dosimeter that reads in effective dose units like rem or
Sievert has some quantitative credibility when measuring cosmogenic muon
radiation.

3. Your risk of being killed by muons (muicide)

Let's consider an average person living at sea level. Googling "muon flux
at sea level" returns a number of reasonably-authoritative sources putting
this quantity at 1/(cm^2 min) = 0.017/(cm^2 s) = 170/(m^2 s). The mean
energy is in the range of 2-4 GeV; this is important because I am about to
make an assumption that there are few muons below 0.1 GeV in this spectrum.
(Muons of <0.1 GeV energy, as mentioned above, tend to decay within your
body and cause more damage, so their weighting factor is higher.) The other
piece of information we need is a flux-to-equivalent-dose 

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

[Axil Axil]

How do we know that what is coming out of the Rossi XCat are electrons and
not muons?

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> Mats, are Muons hard to detect?  Or just hard to distinguish from
> electrons?
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Mats Lewan  wrote:
>
>> Yes Axil,
>>
>> I spoke to Holmlid, and one thing that he underlined was possible large
>> amounts of muons from the reaction, and that muons were hard to detect. He
>> said that that he suspected that also LENR reactions could have this
>> effect, without LENR experimenters knowing it.
>>
>> Mats
>>
>> 4 mars 2016 kl. 18:32 skrev Axil Axil :
>>
>> I don't understand yet what is happening in the Holmlid experiments.
>> There are shiploads of subatomic particles produced in the Holmlid reactor
>> and Holmlid says that hot fusion is happening (which I doubt) and yet there
>> is no gamma radiation coming out of all that chaos. Would the powers that
>> be at CERN let their personal walk around the ATLAS detector when it was in
>> operation producing Kaons. I don't think so.  Does muons catalyze fusion
>> inside the body if muons are injected?  What happens to decaying Kaons
>> inside the lungs. Should LENR experiments be done inside a Hot Cell just in
>> case?
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Russ George 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If speaking of conventional known radiations this comment about dose and
>>> detection is true however in ‘cold fusion’ clearly the unknown is afoot.
>>> One of those unknowns is what is it that can be there but not, or poorly,
>>> be seen. For example what might be seen as a nominal presence near
>>> background that can suddenly be made ‘visible’ to detectors where millirem
>>> signals turn into kilorem! (micro-Sieverts to Sieverts if you prefer)
>>> Fortunately the human body is more akin to our normal detectors than our
>>> enhanced cold fusion mischegunon detectors so the harming dose equivalent
>>> of those massive cold fusion radiations remains for us in health physics
>>> terms as low doses. Still the better cold fusion cooks are sure to see the
>>> most exposure and the nature of this new and still very poorly observed to
>>> say nothing of described radiations is far from clear. More than a few cold
>>> fusion scientists have succumbed already. As is said in ancient texts ‘one
>>> does not catch the unknown in a net of the known.’
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2016 12:13 AM
>>> *To:* Vortex List
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the dose, and the speed of dose to make someone sick is huge and canbe
>>> detected.
>>>
>>> This is what people name "deterministic effect" in radioprotection.
>>>
>>> This is above 700mSv as fast dose
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> there is also undeterministic effect, typically cancer, whose severity
>>> is independent of the dose, but which are trigger for adult above
>>> 100-200mSv as fast dose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> modern biology taught that a cell can endure a given number of genetic
>>> destruction without any short or long term problem.
>>>
>>> above a given rate, there is undeterministic effect (risk of caner of
>>> any gravity)
>>>
>>> and then above a high rate deterministic effect from sickness to death.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> there is much unfounded fear, especially for fulbody scan , foetal
>>> irradiation, positron imaging...
>>>
>>> the threshold today are well known, and the linear dose no treshold
>>> scarmongering is definitively dead, escept in the media...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> this article in french is a good reference
>>>
>>> http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1789
>>>
>>> translated:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr=auto=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle1789=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> for those doubting on it, it refers to element of biology that I've seen
>>> few decade ago described for cancer inception , linked to HSP (heat shock
>>> protein, which as said in the article don't work only for radiation but for
>>> any aggression, mostly oxidative stress caused by respiration, the worst
>>> aggression for DNA)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> there is a video in french which is very clear and interesting fro some
>>> details not written
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9rrD3t3FY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> for example there is reference to the number of damage that a cell can
>>> endure without problem, and above whoch there is non deterministic risks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> reference also to many myth propagated by scaremongers.
>>>
>>> I don't expect to convince as the propaganda is too strong to be opposed
>>> by data.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A phenomenon we observe in LENR domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-03-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :
>>>
>>> Rossi is complaining about a 'failure 

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

[John Berry]

Mats, are Muons hard to detect?  Or just hard to distinguish from electrons?

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Mats Lewan  wrote:

> Yes Axil,
>
> I spoke to Holmlid, and one thing that he underlined was possible large
> amounts of muons from the reaction, and that muons were hard to detect. He
> said that that he suspected that also LENR reactions could have this
> effect, without LENR experimenters knowing it.
>
> Mats
>
> 4 mars 2016 kl. 18:32 skrev Axil Axil :
>
> I don't understand yet what is happening in the Holmlid experiments. There
> are shiploads of subatomic particles produced in the Holmlid reactor and
> Holmlid says that hot fusion is happening (which I doubt) and yet there is
> no gamma radiation coming out of all that chaos. Would the powers that be
> at CERN let their personal walk around the ATLAS detector when it was in
> operation producing Kaons. I don't think so.  Does muons catalyze fusion
> inside the body if muons are injected?  What happens to decaying Kaons
> inside the lungs. Should LENR experiments be done inside a Hot Cell just in
> case?
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
>> If speaking of conventional known radiations this comment about dose and
>> detection is true however in ‘cold fusion’ clearly the unknown is afoot.
>> One of those unknowns is what is it that can be there but not, or poorly,
>> be seen. For example what might be seen as a nominal presence near
>> background that can suddenly be made ‘visible’ to detectors where millirem
>> signals turn into kilorem! (micro-Sieverts to Sieverts if you prefer)
>> Fortunately the human body is more akin to our normal detectors than our
>> enhanced cold fusion mischegunon detectors so the harming dose equivalent
>> of those massive cold fusion radiations remains for us in health physics
>> terms as low doses. Still the better cold fusion cooks are sure to see the
>> most exposure and the nature of this new and still very poorly observed to
>> say nothing of described radiations is far from clear. More than a few cold
>> fusion scientists have succumbed already. As is said in ancient texts ‘one
>> does not catch the unknown in a net of the known.’
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2016 12:13 AM
>> *To:* Vortex List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?
>>
>>
>>
>> the dose, and the speed of dose to make someone sick is huge and canbe
>> detected.
>>
>> This is what people name "deterministic effect" in radioprotection.
>>
>> This is above 700mSv as fast dose
>>
>>
>>
>> there is also undeterministic effect, typically cancer, whose severity is
>> independent of the dose, but which are trigger for adult above 100-200mSv
>> as fast dose.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> modern biology taught that a cell can endure a given number of genetic
>> destruction without any short or long term problem.
>>
>> above a given rate, there is undeterministic effect (risk of caner of any
>> gravity)
>>
>> and then above a high rate deterministic effect from sickness to death.
>>
>>
>>
>> there is much unfounded fear, especially for fulbody scan , foetal
>> irradiation, positron imaging...
>>
>> the threshold today are well known, and the linear dose no treshold
>> scarmongering is definitively dead, escept in the media...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> this article in french is a good reference
>>
>> http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1789
>>
>> translated:
>>
>>
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr=auto=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle1789=1
>>
>>
>>
>> for those doubting on it, it refers to element of biology that I've seen
>> few decade ago described for cancer inception , linked to HSP (heat shock
>> protein, which as said in the article don't work only for radiation but for
>> any aggression, mostly oxidative stress caused by respiration, the worst
>> aggression for DNA)
>>
>>
>>
>> there is a video in french which is very clear and interesting fro some
>> details not written
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9rrD3t3FY
>>
>>
>>
>> for example there is reference to the number of damage that a cell can
>> endure without problem, and above whoch there is non deterministic risks.
>>
>>
>>
>> reference also to many myth propagated by scaremongers.
>>
>> I don't expect to convince as the propaganda is too strong to be opposed
>> by data.
>>
>>
>>
>> A phenomenon we observe in LENR domain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2016-03-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :
>>
>> Rossi is complaining about a 'failure to thrive' condition such as losing
>> weight without reason. We might consider that a primary symptom of chronic
>> radiation exposure is unexplained weight loss.
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> March 3, 2016 at 9:07 PM
>> Jed Orwell:
>> I continue to lose weight and we do not understand why. I am going to
>> make a 

[Vo]:not the KISS principle is for LENR and LENR has layers of identity

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-06-2016-cirs-not-kiss-principle-for.html

I have my personal vision of the history of LENR but its future is more
important,and it must be created now
 Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Jed Rothwell]

Published today:

A Plan in Case Robots Take the Jobs: Give Everyone a Paycheck - The New
York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> There is a remarkable video in this article, showing the latest humanoid
robot from Boston Dynamics. Clearly this machine is not humanoid in the
emotional sense, because if it were, it might punch the operator in the
nose. I felt sorry for the poor thing, which is like feeling sorry for a
dishwasher.
>
>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/26/atlas_the_new_robot_from_boston_dynamics_sets_a_new_standard_for_robot_capabilities.html
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:An experiment you never heard of

[Jones Beene]

Remarkable results appeared in 1999 which were not exactly LENR (but
verified by three independent German laboratories according to Mallove by
way of Bockris – two of the preeminent names in LENR, following P). 

These results were obtained by Mündt, as reported by Petermann - but not
published in English and the full name of Mündt is not certain as he appears
nowhere else in the LERN-CANR library. Thus, we have 3rd hand information
which comes out now, 17 years after the fact, and for an oddball reason:
since it is reminiscent of the Holmlid effect. Plus, the experiment begs to
be replicated somehow.

Mündt measured the input and output energy in the anaerobic combustion of
trash (mixed hydrocarbon with no oxygen). The initial heat input to trigger
combustion is provided by household light bulbs. As has been mentioned
earlier here, the common incandescent light bulb provides its peak output at
the photon equivalent of 1200C, at low efficiency. This temperature – 1200 C
appears to be a trigger for excess heat in the glow-tube reactor. That is
the cross-connection (as arcane as it is).

The German vessel was built to withstand pressures formed by the products of
the reactions as a result of heating by incandescent light from outside the
reactor and a window admitting light. We do not know the exact composition
of the fuel or whether alkali catalysts were used. The thermal output was
claimed to be 2.7 times the input, but after all – this is combustion since
there are chemical redox reactions taking place. The aim is to get rid of
trash with a minimum of CO2. The fact there was apparent gain was thus not
appreciated since it could be all chemical.

The big news at the time was that radioactivity was detected. The
development of a magnetic field was also reported. 

I wish there was more to the story, in light of  new revelations by
Holmlid and the Parkhomov replicators. The paper is entitled: “Is the
Occurrence of Cold Nuclear Reactions Widespread Throughout Nature? By John
O’M. Bockris and Eugene F. Mallove.

I have the suspicion that if Gene and John were still around today, they
would have been as impressed with Holmlid as many of us are – and this story
would not have been buried in an archive.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Inversion of the Mössbauer effect

[H LV]

The standard recipe for making nuclear isomers is to bombard nuclei
with high energy particles or photons.
By referencing the Mössbauer effect I am proposing that a condensed
matter environment could facilitate the formation of nuclear isomers.
In my mind this proposition is no less fantastic than the proposition
that a  condensed matter environment can facilitate nuclear fusion.



Harry


On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:25 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2016 8:15 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> In reply to  H LV's message of Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:00:49 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:52 PM,   wrote:
>> >> In reply to  H LV's message of Sat, 5 Mar 2016 11:48:56 -0500:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> [snip]
>> >>>In the Mössbauer effect when nucleus emits a photon all the recoil
>> >>>energy is absorbed by the lattice as a whole due to the quantization
>> >>>of the vibrational states of the lattice. I think this process could
>> >>>be inverted where the vibrational energy of the lattice is absorbed by
>> >>>a nucleus.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Harry
>> >>
>> >> There is very little recoil energy during gamma-ray emission.
>> >
>> >Yes...and?
>>
>> ...IOW the normal process is little energy shared with the lattice. Now
>> you want
>> to "invert" the process but have a lot of energy concentrated in the
>> nucleus.
>> What I am suggesting is that this wouldn't even be a true inversion of the
>> original process.
>
> This process would need to be repeated millions or billions of times to
> concentrate a lot of energy in the nucleus. If you can think of a better
> descriptor then please do.
> Harry

RE: [Vo]:Jeff Morriss detects radiation in Celani type experiment

[Jones Beene]

Branching Intensity – the reference below is a dead link and the info comes 
from a google cache.

www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00326396.pdf‎

 

"The fraction of decays that is accompanied by the emission of a specific 
energy gamma ray is called the branching intensity… Uranium-235 decays by 
alpha-particle emission with a half-life of 7 x 10^8 yr…. 54% of the alpha 
particles are accompanied by a 185.7-keV gamma ray… 

 

The gist of the situation for those performing gamma testing is that half of 
alpha emissions can be accompanied by direct gamma radiation (at least for U, 
but who knows what the actual ratio is for radon). I suspect the Branching 
Intensity (BI) is higher for Rn than the 54% for U, since the alpha emission is 
stronger for Rn.

 

Jones

-

 

Bob,

 

In addition to gamma rays from those two daughters you mentioned, one must also 
include the branching intensity of radon itself. 

 

Often with high energy alpha decay, as in radon – the alpha is accompanied by a 
gamma ray which shares a fraction of the net energy released. 

 

The branching intensity is the fraction of alpha decay that is accompanied by 
the emission of a gamma. I do not have the exact number handy for radon, but if 
memory serves it is relevant when the counts are this low.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

I stand corrected.  It appears that 214Bi and 214Pb are gamma emitters in the 
radon daughter chain.  Most of the signatures are between 100keV and 1MeV with 
a few above.

 

Jones Beene  wrote:

Bob, 

All three radon isotopes have gamma decay channels in addition to alpha. The 
signatures are well known (around 6 MeV).

 

Radon detection is a cottage industry in silicon valley

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jeff's setup may be more sensitive to radon than Alan's.  The NaI detector that 
Alan used is only sensitive to gamma, and not beta.  Radon decay chains are 
primarily alpha and beta emissions.  With the foil wrapped around Jeff's GM 
detector, he probably does not have much alpha sensitivity, but he will still 
have beta sensitivity - which could come from radon.  Beta and alpha 
sensitivity can be evaluated with check sources.  If Jeff is in the same area 
as Alan, he could borrow Alan's check sources, but I am not sure if Alan has a 
beta source.  A good 24 hour background collection would also be useful as a 
null test to look for radon caused variation.  

 

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

From: Jack Cole 

 

Ø   Jeff Morriss has just published a nice study showing radiation of 7x 
background.  

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2847-Celani-Type-Replication/

This is nice. Here is one comment to file away as a possible mundane 
explanation. 

Jeff Morriss is in the same general geographic area as  Alan Goldwater,  and is 
probably working in his garage. Radon gas is known to be high in Alan’s area, 
and probably in Jeff’s also -- and 7x background is fully explainable by radon, 
if it is there… as is the apparent half-life average. 

… but wait, you say, Jeff did calibrate against background before seeing the 
higher rate, and also the half-life of 222Rn is about 4 days, not one hour.

Yes, but this calibration would not eliminate the source being Radon, since he 
is running a charged wire experiment - and when the experiment is turned on, it 
would attract radon to the wire and thus concentrate the signal. Plus a factor 
of 7 concentration is not unusual; plus the average of all three radon isotopes 
can be in the one hour half-life range. 

Therefore – the source of radiation could be radon. At least it has not yet 
been ruled out.

One way to lessen radon is to move the experiment outside, or to an area of 
lower radon emission (assuming it is high at Jeff’s location).

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?

[Mats Lewan]

Yes Axil, 

I spoke to Holmlid, and one thing that he underlined was possible large amounts 
of muons from the reaction, and that muons were hard to detect. He said that 
that he suspected that also LENR reactions could have this effect, without LENR 
experimenters knowing it. 

Mats

> 4 mars 2016 kl. 18:32 skrev Axil Axil :
> 
> I don't understand yet what is happening in the Holmlid experiments. There 
> are shiploads of subatomic particles produced in the Holmlid reactor and 
> Holmlid says that hot fusion is happening (which I doubt) and yet there is no 
> gamma radiation coming out of all that chaos. Would the powers that be at 
> CERN let their personal walk around the ATLAS detector when it was in 
> operation producing Kaons. I don't think so.  Does muons catalyze fusion 
> inside the body if muons are injected?  What happens to decaying Kaons inside 
> the lungs. Should LENR experiments be done inside a Hot Cell just in case? 
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Russ George  wrote:
>> If speaking of conventional known radiations this comment about dose and 
>> detection is true however in ‘cold fusion’ clearly the unknown is afoot. One 
>> of those unknowns is what is it that can be there but not, or poorly, be 
>> seen. For example what might be seen as a nominal presence near background 
>> that can suddenly be made ‘visible’ to detectors where millirem signals turn 
>> into kilorem! (micro-Sieverts to Sieverts if you prefer) Fortunately the 
>> human body is more akin to our normal detectors than our enhanced cold 
>> fusion mischegunon detectors so the harming dose equivalent of those massive 
>> cold fusion radiations remains for us in health physics terms as low doses. 
>> Still the better cold fusion cooks are sure to see the most exposure and the 
>> nature of this new and still very poorly observed to say nothing of 
>> described radiations is far from clear. More than a few cold fusion 
>> scientists have succumbed already. As is said in ancient texts ‘one does not 
>> catch the unknown in a net of the known.’
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf 
>> Of Alain Sepeda
>> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 12:13 AM
>> To: Vortex List
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> the dose, and the speed of dose to make someone sick is huge and canbe 
>> detected.
>> 
>> This is what people name "deterministic effect" in radioprotection.
>> 
>> This is above 700mSv as fast dose
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> there is also undeterministic effect, typically cancer, whose severity is 
>> independent of the dose, but which are trigger for adult above 100-200mSv as 
>> fast dose.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> modern biology taught that a cell can endure a given number of genetic 
>> destruction without any short or long term problem.
>> 
>> above a given rate, there is undeterministic effect (risk of caner of any 
>> gravity)
>> 
>> and then above a high rate deterministic effect from sickness to death.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> there is much unfounded fear, especially for fulbody scan , foetal 
>> irradiation, positron imaging...
>> 
>> the threshold today are well known, and the linear dose no treshold 
>> scarmongering is definitively dead, escept in the media...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> this article in french is a good reference
>> 
>> http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1789
>> 
>> translated:
>> 
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr=auto=en=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle1789=1
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> for those doubting on it, it refers to element of biology that I've seen few 
>> decade ago described for cancer inception , linked to HSP (heat shock 
>> protein, which as said in the article don't work only for radiation but for 
>> any aggression, mostly oxidative stress caused by respiration, the worst 
>> aggression for DNA)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> there is a video in french which is very clear and interesting fro some 
>> details not written
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9rrD3t3FY
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> for example there is reference to the number of damage that a cell can 
>> endure without problem, and above whoch there is non deterministic risks.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> reference also to many myth propagated by scaremongers.
>> 
>> I don't expect to convince as the propaganda is too strong to be opposed by 
>> data.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A phenomenon we observe in LENR domain.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2016-03-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :
>> 
>> Rossi is complaining about a 'failure to thrive' condition such as losing 
>> weight without reason. We might consider that a primary symptom of chronic 
>> radiation exposure is unexplained weight loss.
>> 
>> Andrea Rossi
>> March 3, 2016 at 9:07 PM
>> Jed Orwell:
>> I continue to lose weight and we do not understand why. I am going to make a 
>> lot of “scopies” you name one, I scope it, but I feel well 

Re: [Vo]:a number (value) worth a million words for LENR

[Peter Gluck]

Sometimes we are not able to co-process many contradictory statements.
Also the process used in 2016 can be significantly different- for example
regarding the radioactive channels open or shot- from what he used in
2011-2.
A really complex issue-changing.

Peter

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
> do not take this literally
>>
>> I bet we will have more info tomorrow or even later today
>>
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-04-2016-number-worth-million-words.html
>>
>
> Quoted from your blog post:
>
> Andrea Rossi
> March 4, 2016 at 10:02 AM
>
> Gerard McEk:
> The radiations have always been measured and no radiation above the
> background have ever been measured in 6 years.
> The cause of weight, so far, is thought to be caused by tiredness for
> excessive physical effort. Obviously my doctors have ordered a complete
> list of analysis and scopies.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
>
> Either my memory is bad, or Rossi's is, because I recall there being lead
> shielding at one point whose purpose was explained to be to thermalize
> "gammas".
>
> Eric
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com