[Vo]:EVOs in Quantum computing

[Axil Axil]

Ken Shoulders contribution to LENR theory: the Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO)
might be useful for more things that just LENR. MFMP has photographed an
EVO near a strange radiation track recently using a low powered microscope.
The EVO is an ideal q-bit, a primary logic component of a quantum computer.
It is self powered, coherent, superfluidic and able to form a Bose
condensate. With the acceptance and understanding of this aspect of the
LENR reaction by science, that is, the understanding about what EVOs are
and the details about how they work, this understanding will form a LENR
knowledge base that will be a revolutionary breakthrough for the field of
quantum computing.

The major job of the Q-bit is to enter a state of quantum mechanical
superposition that gives the q-pit the ability to solve probabilistic and
exponential based problems, learn and even think. The number of q-bits that
can be created in a quantum computer enables the count of superpositions
that this computer can support to be equal to the 2 power exponent of the
number of those q-bits. 72 q-bits are the max so far implemented. But as we
have seen in the LION reactor, hundreds or even thousands of EVOs exist
inside a single micro diamond. A LENR system might one day support billions
of EVOs just like the number of neurons inside the human brain.

LENR tech could support an EVO based quantum computer that can run at
extremely high temperatures and supports millions of q-bits indefinably in
which the neuron like EVO is everlasting. With that level of processing
power, a eternal LENR machine can be built that can think and learn just
like people do.

For more information on the new directions in Quantum research see:

Job One for Quantum Computers: Boost Artificial Intelligence

The fusion of quantum computing and machine learning has become a booming
research area. Can it possibly live up to its high expectations?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/job-one-for-quantum-computers-boost-artificial-intelligence-20180129/


Leaving aside whether the human brain is a quantum computer — a highly
contentious question — it sometimes acts as if it were one. Human behavior
is notoriously contextual; our preferences are formed by the choices we are
given, in ways that defy logic. In this, we are like quantum particles.
“The way you ask questions and the ordering matters and that is something
that is very typical in quantum data sets,” Perdomo-Ortiz said. So a
quantum machine-learning system might be a natural way to study human
cognitive biases.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-quantum-brain.html


Quantum computer: We're planning to create one that acts like a brain

We need much more advanced AI if we want it to help us create things like
truly autonomous self-driving cars and systems for accurately managing the
traffic flow of an entire city in real-time. Many attempts to build this
kind of software involve writing code that mimics the way neurons in the
human brain work and combining many of these artificial neurons into a
network. Each neuron mimics a decision-making process by taking a number of
input signals and processing them to give an output corresponding to either
"yes" or "no".

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the
> paper I linked
>  to in the
> previous email, his work has been debunked.
>

I strongly disagree.



> He [Piantelli] supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I
> think they got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities
> without giving them any clear protocol to follow.
>

Okay, so they did not try to replicate him. As I said, only one person has
tried as far as I know. You cannot draw any conclusion from one failed
replication.



>   Unless that can be produced, there is no reason to assume he has
> anything (other than his word).  If I'm not mistaken, CERN tried to
> replicate some of his work and failed.
>

Correct. That's the only attempt I know of.



>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>>
>>
>> What is BEC?
>>
>> Brillouin Energy Corp.
>

Has anyone tried to replicate their electrolysis results? If not, no one
knows.

Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>>
>> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results
> after learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!
>

So what? People often retract. The only attempts I know of were not
adequate. The one you cited above is not adequate.

You cannot tell whether the original experiment is at fault, or the
replication is. No one can tell.



> You claimed that most or all of his work had been replicated.
>

I did not. Or if I did, I certainly did not mean to say that. Anyone can
read his papers and see they have not been replicated.



>  I'm not confusing terms.  I meant debunked.
>

Then I think you are wrong. Note that the term "debunk" means "expose as a
sham" or:

expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
"the magazine that debunks claims of the paranormal"
synonyms: explode, deflate, puncture, quash,

I think that is too strong a term for what you cite.



> You have to address the issues that Kowalski et. al. raised and I quoted
> above.
>

I am not obligated. I do not agree, and I am not going to take the time to
explain why.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>
>> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
>> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>>
>
> Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never
> published. I meant published results in the scientific literature.
>
> He is and he did (more than once).  You can look it up.


>
>
>> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
> scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
> that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
> Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
> it "evidence."
>
>
>
It is evidence.  You may disagree with the meaning of that evidence.


> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
>> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>>
>
> Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw
> positive results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was
> no disproved by any means.
>
>
>
You have to read the paper.  It is pretty convincing.  There were several
replications before that (like 5+).


> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
>> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>>
>
> No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
> anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
> replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
> conditions. Not for lack of trying.
>
>
>
I don't know what kind of evidence you require to call something debunked,
but I think it is thoroughly debunked unless Mizuno has responded and
conducted follow-up experiments taking into account splashing out of the
electrolyte.

Here is what one attempted replicator said
:

> Mizuno claims in his report2 that “the reaction is 100% reproducible.” A
> casual observer would certainly have to agree that we have replicated the
> basic phenomenon that Mizuno, et al were investigating. However, we see no
> sign of excess heat in our experiments. Our calorimetry has an overall
> accuracy of about 1% relative and this results in an excess heat detection
> limit of about 3% relative. Therefore we have not accidentally missed “high
> heat output of the order of several hundred watts…from input power of tens
> of watts”.


Unless Mizuno can/did address the following problems addressed in the paper
I linked  to in
the previous email, his work has been debunked.

The challenge presented by ejection of liquid water is indeed very serious
> becase the latent heat of evaporation is large. Mist ejection, at the rate
> of 50 milligrams per second, results in the overestimation of Pout by
> 2260*0.05 = 113 W. This, however, is only one possible explanation of
> discrepancies. Another might be associated with microexplosions we
> occasionally observed during plasma electrolysis, expecially at higher
> voltages (see Appendix 3). Such explosions are accompanied by loud popping
> noise and very intensive arcing. We suspect that escaping hydrogen and
> oxygen occasionally combine under the influence of arcing. That could be a
> possible non-nuclear source of excess heat repored by several researchers.


   Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>>
>
> Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
> probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
> reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.
>
>
He supposedly was going to teach MFMP how to replicate, but I think they
got tired of him talking about all the supposed complexities without giving
them any clear protocol to follow.  Unless that can be produced, there is
no reason to assume he has anything (other than his word).  If I'm not
mistaken, CERN tried to replicate some of his work and failed.



>
>
>>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>>
>
> What is BEC?
>
> Brillouin Energy Corp.


>
> Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
>> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
>> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>>
>
> I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
> excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.
>
>

>
>>   Recall the previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had
>> been initially replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at
>> least to me).
>>
>
> Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?
>
> At least 3.  One of the supposed replicators retracted their results after
learning about the problems.  They refuted their own results!

Two withdrew their resul

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected
> papers conducted by academics) . . .
>

Parkhomov maybe. I don't know if he a professional, and he never published.
I meant published results in the scientific literature.



> , possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP) . . .
>

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the decreasing COP is not "evidence" in the
scientific sense. It is a fact that gives you a bad feeling. A gut feeling
that something is not right. That's reasonable, but it ain't evidence.
Unless you know a lot more about the experiment than I do, you can't call
it "evidence."



> , Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even
> though they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).
>

Definitely not. Very few have tried to replicate. Some who did saw positive
results. I don't think it should be called confirmed, but it was no
disproved by any means.



> Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
> which were later replicated, and even later debunked.
>

No, that did not happen. A few people replicated. No one has "debunked"
anything. I have been following this closely, and I know a lot about the
replication attempts. Most of them failed to achieve the necessary
conditions. Not for lack of trying.



>Piantelli has made high output claims -- never replicated.
>

Only one person tried to replicate as far as I know. The conditions were
probably not met, according to Piantelli. Anyway, one test is not
reasonable grounds to dismiss a claim.



>   Nobody has replicated BEC's electrolysis results.
>

What is BEC?


Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
> experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
> error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).
>

I myself made a mistake in it, but you said "big" errors, meaning large
excess heat. That was what appeared to be a tiny result.



>   Recall the previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had
> been initially replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at
> least to me).
>

Disproved by who? In what paper? After how many tests?



>   What research of his do you feel is highly replicable?
>

I have no idea. No one can know that. People have not tried to replicate
most of them. You would have to be omniscient to judge that. The only way
to find out whether an experiment is replicable or not is to try to
replicate it. That usually takes months or years of effort. In cold fusion,
only a few claims have been sufficiently tested for anyone to judge whether
they are true or false.



> Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess.
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf
>

Has anyone disproved this? Has anyone else tried it?



> Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by
> micro-explosions.
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf
>

Has anyone replicated this and observed micro-explosions? Has this
hypothesis been tested?

I think you are confusing "not clear yet" or "not proven" or "not tested
enough to reach a clear conclusion" with:

"debunking"

or

"failure."

There are countless open questions in science. Countless unresolved issues.
An experiment that has not been replicated is not debunked. It is in limbo,
and likely to remain there forever. Very few claims are ever conclusively
shown to be wrong. None of the ones you listed have been, as far as I know.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:51 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> We've seen errors this big before.
>>
>
> I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger:
> 1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any
> professional scientist who has published a paper which was later shown to
> have errors on this scale. Not in absolute power, or in the O/I ratio.
>
> If you disagree, which paper do you have in mind? Who made errors this big
> before?
>
>
Parkhomov, Defkalion, me356, Rossi of course (consider the connected papers
conducted by academics), possibly Brillouin (evident from decreasing COP),
Mizuno's (and many others) old plasma electrolysis work, BLP (even though
they point to a different mechanism - they claim high SNR).  There were
other papers claiming replication of Rossi that could never be replicated.
It's not hard to get it wrong and in a big way.  The experimenter needs to
be his or her own biggest critic.  In particular, because he (MIzuno) has
the most intimate knowledge of his apparatus.


>
>> Best to not get too excited until there is a replication.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
>>   Based on history, every time there has been an amazing result like
>> this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake, unreplicable, or
>> fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).
>>
>
> I do not think so, as I said. Give some examples. Who made a huge mistake?
> What was not replicatable? The only fraudulent results in the history of
> the field were Defkalion and Rossi, as far as I know. There may be others
> that were fraud, but I thought they were mistakes that could not be
> replicated. However, all the results I know of that could not be replicated
> were very small. They were marginal. They look like mistakes.
>
> I have never heard of anyone claiming 40 to 250 W that turned out to be a
> mistake. Very few claims in cold fusion exceeded 10 or 20 W. As far as I
> know, the only reaction of ~20 W that could not be replicated is Dardik's
> heat after death:
>
> https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf
>
> The only major large claim, of ~100 W, was Fleischmann and Pons boil-off
> experiment. As far as I know, only one group tried to replicate, Lonchampt
> and Biberian. They succeeded. Lonchampt was a nuclear engineer, so he
> followed instructions, so it worked.
>
> There was a molten salt claim of over 100 W, but no one tried to replicate.
>
>
Not true.  Mizuno has made such claims himself with plasma electrolysis,
which were later replicated, and even later debunked.   Piantelli has made
high output claims -- never replicated.  Nobody has replicated BEC's
electrolysis results.  You could argue that nobody has replicated his gas
loading experiments either (though there is some possible support through
testing).

>
> How many times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his
>> results to be in error in the past?
>>
>
> Never, as far as I know. All of his claims were either replicated, or no
> one tried to replicate. Mostly the latter. IH tried to replicate one claim
> but they never got started, as far as I know. There were problems with the
> equipment. This resembles the situation with the Google researchers in
> *Nature* for their Pd-D claims. It was not a replication because they
> never reached high loading. It was an attempt that failed for known
> reasons. (I cannot judge their Ni claims.)
>
>
Recall the previous results that were debated here about a Mizuno
experiment and calorimetry, which Dave Roberson was able to determine the
error that had been made (through very clever simulation work).  Recall the
previous claims of Mizuno and plasma electrolysis that had been initially
replicated, but later research convincingly disproved (at least to me).
What research of his do you feel is highly replicable?

Here's a replication claiming up to 120W excess.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FauvarqueJabnormalex.pdf

Non-replication explaining previous results by splashing out of water by
micro-explosions.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLsearchingfa.pdf



>

[Vo]:Palladium now more valuable than gold

[JonesBeene]

Interesting that palladium at $1400/ ounce or 27 grams -  is now more expensive 
than gold and almost twice as valuable as platinum.

This – despite the electric car phenomenon.  

80% of all mined Pd goes into catalytic converters.  The Russians are said to 
control the market for Pd in one way or another.

http://fortune.com/2019/02/11/palladium-more-valuable-gold/

The Mizuno News did not in any way influence this high price – but – the price 
indicatse the extreme scarcity in Nature of palladium.

If Mizuno were to be confirmed – and that fact were to be widely publicized - 
then the price of palladium could skyrocket. 

In fact, even at the present record price – buying the metal could be a wise 
investment. Makes more sense than Bitcoins.

Jones

Say… would anyone even notice if I rubbed a few milligrams off this American 
Eagle four nines Palladium coin  ??

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[JonesBeene]

Jack,

When your post came through, I was thinking about the simple  experiments you 
did some time ago with nickel and nitinol and whether or not anything from the 
recent Mizuno reports could be transposed to simple electrolysis experiments, 
in general. It could be worth thinking about.

Obviously the two techniques are miles apart due to the low pressure, but that 
does not mean there could not be something of interest in trying to combine the 
other features and especially the mechanical application of a few milligrams of 
Pd onto say nitinol.

In a way - the so-called Letts/Cravens effect does  combine electrolysis of an 
electrolyte with photon irradiation and thus can be seen as going in that 
direction and it was mildly successful -  but it does not recognize the exact 
wavelength of the palladium optical anomaly. That exact wavelength when used 
with mechanical alloying,  could be more important than coherency.

Obviously, the nitinol or nickel cathode could easily be rubbed with palladium 
first- in order to achieve a nano-layer,  but that is unlikely to show anything 
of interest on its own. Maybe it would however, who knows. However, it is more 
likely  that combining a mechanically applied coating to a cathode - plus also 
irradiating that cathode with photons at the exact frequency of the palladium 
optical anomaly (which is 650 nm) could give a noticeable boost. I see that 
eBay carries the LEDs for $2 each. They should work when submerged in 
electrolyte – so this strategy could be of interest just to see if the combo 
(rubbed Pd plus 650 nm photons) makes a noticeable difference in gas emission 
or heat.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ledtech-3mm-RED-Round-LED-Lamp-650nm-GaP-GaP-LT0311-41-NEW-Qty-10-/201184042320


From: Jack Cole

…Best to not get too excited until there is a replication

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

We've seen errors this big before.
>

I do not think so. Rossi apparently made errors this big, and much bigger:
1 MW. (I think this was fraud, not error.) But I do not know recall any
professional scientist who has published a paper which was later shown to
have errors on this scale. Not in absolute power, or in the O/I ratio.

If you disagree, which paper do you have in mind? Who made errors this big
before?



> Best to not get too excited until there is a replication.
>

I agree.



>   Based on history, every time there has been an amazing result like this,
> it has turned out to be either a huge mistake, unreplicable, or fraudulent
> (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).
>

I do not think so, as I said. Give some examples. Who made a huge mistake?
What was not replicatable? The only fraudulent results in the history of
the field were Defkalion and Rossi, as far as I know. There may be others
that were fraud, but I thought they were mistakes that could not be
replicated. However, all the results I know of that could not be replicated
were very small. They were marginal. They look like mistakes.

I have never heard of anyone claiming 40 to 250 W that turned out to be a
mistake. Very few claims in cold fusion exceeded 10 or 20 W. As far as I
know, the only reaction of ~20 W that could not be replicated is Dardik's
heat after death:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf

The only major large claim, of ~100 W, was Fleischmann and Pons boil-off
experiment. As far as I know, only one group tried to replicate, Lonchampt
and Biberian. They succeeded. Lonchampt was a nuclear engineer, so he
followed instructions, so it worked.

There was a molten salt claim of over 100 W, but no one tried to replicate.


How many times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his
> results to be in error in the past?
>

Never, as far as I know. All of his claims were either replicated, or no
one tried to replicate. Mostly the latter. IH tried to replicate one claim
but they never got started, as far as I know. There were problems with the
equipment. This resembles the situation with the Google researchers in
*Nature* for their Pd-D claims. It was not a replication because they never
reached high loading. It was an attempt that failed for known reasons. (I
cannot judge their Ni claims.)

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake

[Jack Cole]

We've seen errors this big before.  Best to not get too excited until there
is a replication.  Based on history, every time there has been an amazing
result like this, it has turned out to be either a huge mistake,
unreplicable, or fraudulent (I don't suspect fraud at all in this case).  I
hope I'm wrong, and the issue has been solved once and for all.  How many
times have people failed to replicate Mizuno and/or shown his results to be
in error in the past?  This is not a criticism, but a call for tempered
expectations.

Jack

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:32 PM Dave Roberson  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Dave Roberson 
> *Sent: *Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
>
>
>
> Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a
> gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to
> believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my
> own question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone
> wanting to replicate the experiment.
>
>
>
> Dave
>