Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What gives the Rossi type reactor its power is the secret sauce and the Rossi reaction is different from and more powerful than the Brillouin reaction. Considering that Rossi hasn't revealed how the E-Cat system works I don't see how you can make this assertion. Do you actually know how the E-Cat works or are you guessing? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. [Mark Gibbs] On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ Many have argued that the discrediting of Fleischmann and Pons was driven and used by others in the science world to further their own careers and to promote “big science” experiments with “hot fusion.” Who ever said that FP were trying to promote hot fusion? T
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Thanks for the welcome. Comments inline ... [mg] On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Eric Walker wrote: Le Aug 5, 2012 à 12:21 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com javascript:; a écrit : Re-read that sentence ... carefully, this time. [Mark Gibbs] Hi Mark, Good to see you on this list. Your articles have been the subject of several extended threads and of no small amount of controversy. But I think people like a diversity of views here. One question I had about the recent article was the inclusion of NanoSpire in the list. I know next to nothing about their technology, although the one description I have read of some of the theory behind it seemed fanciful. Perhaps it is legitimate technology that will stand the test of time, but nonetheless I would have hesitated to mention it in an article as a LENR-related company without doing a great deal of vetting. Can you comment on what you know about them? All I know about their technology is that I don't understand much of the 'theory' behind it and the comments I've read on various blogs including my own - most of which have been very and surprisingly positive - seem a little over the top (the process is supposed to generate a whole range of valuable elements and if the hype is to be believed, that probably includes unicorns as well). Nanospire makes claims of fusion being involved and as they are the most vIsible of the less well known players I thought they were worth including ... Your mileage, etc. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Gibbs should cease writing about cold fusion and stick to writing about USB flash drives or whatever other tech stories are appealing to his readership of establishment goons. His bias and regular omission of the facts clearly comes through in the tone and content of his articles. It's a wonder Randi or Bob Park haven't offered him a job as chief spin-doctor. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Mon, August 06, 2012 10:23 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
I rest my case. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature superconducting, which also cannot be explained. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they output more energy than is put into them. Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. Martin was an FRS; Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their fields. an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own made-up version of things. I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar and English prose. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed
In the piece by Hank Mills it claims PESN has obtained satisfactory confirmation that a report covering the test does indeed exist. ... the article then goes on to completely avoid any details as to what the satisfactory confirmation might be or who might consider it satisfactory. The piece concludes with If the test reports that are expected to be released at Zurich and then in October show evidence of the above, they are worth waiting for. Sure, and if the tests reveal that unicorns are real that would also be worth waiting for. Hank Mills continues: I would go further; if they show kilowatts of excess heat and temperatures of up to 1,200C, the wait will have been trivial. If, if, if ... As my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. [Mark Gibbs] On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Sterling Allan sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com wrote: ** We could have published this much sooner, but with all of the negativity going around presently about Rossi, I thought it deserved a story by itself. http://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/ - http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Image:120717_hot-cat_R_123482996_1_sq_95x95.jpg Featured http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Latest / Best Exotic FEhttp://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Best_Exotic_Clean_Energy_Technologies : Nuclear http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Nuclear Cold Fusion http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cold_Fusion Rossihttp://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator_(E-Cat) *Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmedhttp://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/ * - PESN has obtained confirmation that a report about a third-party test of an E-Cat module, reaching 1,200 degrees Celsius, does indeed exist. We're not a liberty to say more than that, so don't ask. (*PESN*; August 22, 2012)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed
it makes me wonder why the media in this case seems so inept. ... you wonder because you have no idea what you're talking about. In this case, PESN and Hank Mills are tossing out a claim that has nothing to follow up on ... there's no who, where, or when to chase. Also, your expectation that the media should have either, confirmed a fraud OR confirmed something newsworthy is equally nonsensical. Just consider that all of you on the Vortex list with all of your enormous brains applied to the topic for way longer than I've been following it and with far more scientific knowledge than I have on the topic and with all of your connections can only, at best, come up with what are ifs and hopes and theories. [m] On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Randy wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: ** Mark Gibbs: Mark, I agree with you. However, I am not a journalist. As a journalist, I would expect you to have SOURCES I don't have. I would expect a journalist who is obviously interested in the subject to know more than I know, But, I read your articles and find that you provide me NO more information than I already have which I might say is very disappointing. Frankly, by now I would expect the media (and an investigative reporter and journalist) to have either, confirmed a fraud OR confirmed something newsworthy. I find they and you have done neither and it makes me wonder why the media in this case seems so inept. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com ; E-Cat newsletter e-...@yahoogroups.com ; Sterling Allan sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com ; Hank Mills hankmi...@pesn.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:23 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed In the piece by Hank Mills it claims PESN has obtained satisfactory confirmation that a report covering the test does indeed exist. ... the article then goes on to completely avoid any details as to what the satisfactory confirmation might be or who might consider it satisfactory. The piece concludes with If the test reports that are expected to be released at Zurich and then in October show evidence of the above, they are worth waiting for. Sure, and if the tests reveal that unicorns are real that would also be worth waiting for. Hank Mills continues: I would go further; if they show kilowatts of excess heat and temperatures of up to 1,200C, the wait will have been trivial. If, if, if ... As my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. [Mark Gibbs] On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Sterling Allan sterlin...@pureenergysystems.com wrote: ** We could have published this much sooner, but with all of the negativity going around presently about Rossi, I thought it deserved a story by itself. http://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/ - http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Image:120717_hot-cat_R_123482996_1_sq_95x95.jpg Featured http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Latest / Best Exotic FEhttp://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Best_Exotic_Clean_Energy_Technologies : Nuclear http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Nuclear Cold Fusion http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cold_Fusion Rossihttp://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator_(E-Cat) *Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmedhttp://pesn.com/2012/08/22/9602166_Existence_of_1200_C_E-Cat_Test_Report_Confirmed/ * - PESN has obtained confirmation that a report about a third-party test of an E-Cat module, reaching 1,200 degrees Celsius, does indeed exist. We're not a liberty to say more than that, so don't ask. (*PESN*; August 22, 2012) No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5217 - Release Date: 08/22/12
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
How disappointing. Once again, it looks like yet more jam tomorrow. So, there aren't enough details in the paper for you chaps to theorize what the actual physical test set up consisted of? Anyone care to take a WAG at it? Also, it's odd that other than in the paper's URL on http://newenergytimes.com/ the document isn't dated (in fact the only date I noticed in it is 1992 embedded in the URL of a citation). [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netresponded snarkily: Mark Gibbs asks rather impatiently, “Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR?” ** ** Very simply and obvious reasons… lack of details of exactly how, and patent infringement! The testing at SRI is getting underway and hopefully will go a long way to achieving what you ask. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Gibbs *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability ** ** If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! ** ** Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? ** ** [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ** ** Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? ** ** Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.*** * ** ** There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. ** ** Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. ** ** - Jed ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Thanks, Ruby ... Jed just asked the same question I was going to ask ... [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: *One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. * What do you think they meant by that?!? That is a strange thing to say. Did they mean the cell might produce a fatal dose of radiation? If it could do that, it probably would have in the years they were working on it. They would be dead already. Maybe it means instant death to the skeptical point of view. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
How about keeping the tank on the roof and using a thermosiphon [1] or, better still, a passive vapor heat pipe [2] to transfer heat to the tank from a collector below? The height difference between the collector and the tank would only have to be a foot or two and you'd want the tank on the roof anyway to provide pressure when using the hot water. [mg] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:42 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I know of a few locations where it would be nice to have passive solar hot water in the summer. I have noted that a black garden hose in the sun produces hot water. The hose could be placed on a roof. The problem is getting this heat into a storage tank passively. The hot water tank would have to be mounted higher than than the hose. I would like to employ the ordinary basement hot water tank. Hot water rises and will not go down to the basement tank. Is there any fluid that sinks when heated? Can a dissolved gas be somehow employed to make hot water sink? Any ideas? Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:October is here : Pordenone program
Alan, ( He,he,he,he…) ... I see you left out the next sentence ... Dear Steven N. Karels: Your question is inspiring: well, I will not go to Pordenone to clean the tops of the Dolomites with the wax: it is possible that in the Pordenione convention I will bring the final results regarding the third party validation of the Hot Cat. It is not certain, some work has still to be done, but it is not impossible. ( He,he,he,he…) We are working like beasts on the Hot Cat, in the USA as well as in Italy, and we are making something quite useful. Warm Regards, A.R. The clean of the tops of the Dolomites with the wax and the he-he-ing seem unusually odd even for Rossi ... Does anyone know if the former is a bad translation of a colloquialism? [mg] On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: What’s up with a new E-CAT Meeting Scheduled for Pordenone, Italy on Oct 12. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=7#comment-343916 Andrea Rossi October 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 PM Dear Steven N. Karels: Your question is inspiring: well, I will not go to Pordenone to clean the Dolomites with the wax: it is possible that in the Pordenione convention I will bring the final results regarding the third party validation of the Hot Cat. It is not certain, some work has still to be done, but it is not impossible. ( He,he,he,he…) Warm Regards, A.R. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/3603/ Program for Pordenone E-Cat ConferencePROGRAM At 15:00 Mr. Franco Scolari – General Pordenone Technology Greetings and introduction At 15:30 Arch Gianvico Pirazzini – Leonardo Corporation Introduction to the E-Cat At 15:45 Mr. Fulvio Fabiani – Leonardo Corporation The E-Cat: aspects of installation and safety At 16:00 Mr. Andrea Rossi – Leonardo Corporation CEO of E-Cat – Energy from cold fusion Nickel At 16:30 Round Table – will be: Dr. Salvatore Majorana Director of Technology Transfer IIT Dr. Riccardo Sabatini SISSA Trieste – research group on computational modeling Prof. Franco Battaglia ing Department. Materials and Environment University of Modena and Reggio Emilia Giovanni Petris Head Office environment, energy policy and the mountain region FVG Dr. George Cecco Regional Coordinator FareAmbiente FVG At 18:00 Paolo Santin Regional Councillor PDL Friuli Venezia Giulia Greetings closing - - - - A previous report had Rossi talking FOR 15 hours -- rather than AT 15:00 hours -- now up to 16 Hours
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see that my interest has *always* been in useful cold fusion ... The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful. [mg] On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:We should employ new methods of persuading the public
there is no hope to convince people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client table, and that clearly work, even roughly. I could have sworn that was what I've been writing on and off for the last year or so! No one but scientists care if CF exists but isn't useful in the everyday world. The endless theories about how CF might work are, in practical terms, unimportant. If CF is shown to be useful, everything changes. All that is required is for someone or some company to fire up a CF device that has some measurable useful energy output and leave it running for long enough to convince everyone it's real -- that would be the kind of fact that I think Peter's referring to that would counter theanti-CF memes. In fact, Peter summed up the problem with the public perception CF perfectly: no continuity and no continuation ... not [correlatable] by some common logic ... [making it] very difficult to compose a coherent, convincing discourse. Now it's over to Mr. Rothwell to tell us why we're all wrong. [mg] On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I agree 100% with Alain. Very powerful anti-CF memes are circulating and cannot be erased by words, just by facts. The many positive achievements of Cold Fusion from the past have no continuity and no continuation, are not correlable by some common logic techno(logic), it is very difficult to compose a coherent, convincing discourse- for example for a young absolutely ignorant, unprejudiced public. We need FACTS- new Facts. Peter On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: A serial innovator I'm in contact with, and who is working to make LENR a vector of energetic transition, told me that there is no hope to convince people until there is a working prototype that we can put on the client table, and that clearly work, even roughly. However as soon as we have a machine on the client table, and that the advantages for the client are clear, nothing can block people to use it... no lobbies, no regulation, no fear... especially todays, where it is clear that people think that the system cannot continue as-is. what make me afraid is that the replication of LENR (like by MFMP), won't have any impact People , even open mind, seems not to be able to accept LENR. It must make a car run or a plane fly, and even, people will suspect fraud. normal poeple behave between SDciAm (don't look at facts) or MY (argue on tiny points to reject the mass of proofs) 2012/11/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I have been reading some interesting articles about public opinion and the 2012 campaign. I have also been hearing directly from people in the Obama campaign. New methods of reaching the public have been developed in the 21st century. The Internet and social media are used to coordinate campaigns, gather support and encourage people to vote. I think we should make use of these techniques to promote cold fusion. Perhaps we do not need to do that now. We don't have the resources. However, if it becomes widely known that cold fusion is real, I predict it will become the focus of intense political activity. We will need to launch public relations campaigns. We should think about this now. We should prepare for it. As a practical matter I hope that I can contact some of the people in the Obama campaign to assist us. I have mixed feelings about using the manipulative methods of political campaigns and Madison Avenue. I find them distasteful. However we need these methods if we are going to win. Cold fusion is inherently political in many ways. We must deal with political realities. Both Republicans and Democrats made use of new techniques, but the Obama campaign in particular hired a cadre of young, hotshot social scientists who are pioneering new methods. These methods are first and foremost pragmatic. They have been refined with field tests and actual data from respondents. These researchers have discovered a number of facts and new techniques about persuasion and public opinion. Some of them overturn widely held conventional ideas. Here's an interesting example. In a campaign the goal should not be to persuade people in the middle so much as to: 1. Hold onto one's own set of supporters; 2. Persuading moderates on the other side. Suppose the range of opinions on a political issue can be quantified such that a range of responses are graded from 1 to 10. Extremists in support of your side are at 1 and 2; people at 5 have no strong opinion; and people at the opposite extreme are at 9 and 10. I mean that when you ask a question people fill out numbers, the way people grade movies at Netflix. Your campaign should strive to hold onto people from 1 to 4, and it should reach out to people at 6 and 7 rather than 5. They are more likely to come over to your side than the people at 5. To take concrete example, in the third debate
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
Exactly. [mg] On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no?
Re: [Vo]:Centre for the Study of Existential Risk
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: the gibbs like it might be wrongly done or use, so just don't do it You should read what I write more carefully: I didn't say CF/LENR shouldn't be used but that possible unintended consequences should be considered. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
And what about in the MFM Project? [m] On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, McKubre takes the endothermic loading and exothermic off loading into his calculations in his work at SRI. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
Why is it not an issue? [m] On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: With NiH loading is not an issue. It seems we have two totally different LENR reactions occuring. Are they based on the same physics? Maybe yes, maybe no. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, McKubre takes the endothermic loading and exothermic off loading into his calculations in his work at SRI. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
Why not? On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I should say percentage of loading does not appear to be an issue. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: With NiH loading is not an issue. It seems we have two totally different LENR reactions occuring. Are they based on the same physics? Maybe yes, maybe no. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, McKubre takes the endothermic loading and exothermic off loading into his calculations in his work at SRI. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various LENR/CF devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of excess energy from the operation of the devices still valid? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:A Proposal to stop all Off-Topic posts (was: Continued trolling by Jojo Jaro)
Is it worth pointing out that if you all did what Jed does -- filter Jojo out -- you wouldn't have to be annoyed over what he says. The end result would have the same result as banning him without the need for appeals to the list mom to do the dirty work. [mg] On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The point the others are making it is that you are the sole bullying of this forum and you are getting away without being punished. Also, you constantly play the victim, which makes it even more annoying. 2012/12/18 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com . You break the rules of this forum with impunity and destroy this forum that I love and you insult me at every turn, and you expect me to lay quiet? Good luck with that. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Pig breeding, Birthers, attacks on Islam, attacks on each other ... what is the matter with you people? Jojo throws out blatant nonsense that isn't intended to achieve anything constructive and that only the most generous would treat as reasonable discussion and everyone rises to the bait. Abd, to his credit, (mostly) responds to Jojo politely, Jojo responds with more outrageous assertions and endless ad hominem attacks, and the circle of ridiculousness repeats. Now Peter has been sucked in ... It's one thing to have an off-topic discussion but quite another when a list is hijacked by little else besides off-topic posts. Really, the Vortex list-Mom needs to manage this list a whole lot better if it's to have any relevance to its original goal ... this is why lists die. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show their first estrus. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, the pregnancy will normally not take hold and the gilts will exhibit another estrus on their next cycle about 21 days later. The gilts are not sexually mature despite the obvious occurence of the estrus cycle. On occasions where a pregnancy takes hold, you will end up with radically fewer piglets born and smaller piglets born. A normal sow pregnancy is about 10-12 piglets and about 1-2 kgs of piglet weight. If you mate a gilt on her first estrus, on average you will get less than 3 piglets with about 1/3 lbs. piglets (notice 1-2 kg is 2-5 lbs for a normal pregnancy. A first cycle pregnancy is 1/3 lbs piglet.) Very very small piglets that will not normally survive to weaning age. What I am saying is documented by pig breeders everywhere so no one who is honest will claim I am lying about this. In fact, if you read pig breeding books, they would recommend that you wait until the second estrus to mate that gilt. This my friends are facts. In fact, in fact, in fact. The older the gilt is when you first mate her, the more and bigger your piglets. This is easy to understand. An older gilt's body is more mature and will support more piglets compared to a young gilt on her first cycle. The same is true with human girls. Everyone agrees that exhibiting menstrual cycle at 9 years of age is unusually early for a little girl. Normal menstrual age is about 11-12, most even don't cycle until they are 14. Ask any doctor. Now here comes Lomax and argues that a 9 year old little girl is sexually mature because she has had her first cycle. Apparently, she was not because we have no documented pregnancy of A'isha when she was 9. Her body was simply not mature enough
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
Does anyone know how to get William Beaty to manage the conduct on this list? If you look at the recent messages on this list ( http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/maillist.html) the ration of science to squabbling is ridiculous and mots of the traffic comes from just a few people going seriously off topic. If Beaty isn't willing to moderate and push the OT stuff over to Vortex B then someone (Jed?) should seriously consider starting an alternative list. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Of course there's a lot of bad mojo. How would you feel if you are insulted at every turn? by people ignorant of the real situation. First Lomax, then SVJ, then Rocha, then Craig, then Walker then Jouni then Peter and now Mark. All openning their comments with insults. ( I have not included those people who made mild insults like you.) I am capable of discussing with civility as I have with David and a few others. If people want to insult, an insult is what they will receive back. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:24 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Unfortunately I sense lots of bad mojo behind many of the posts in this exchange On Friday, December 28, 2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Pig breeding, Birthers, attacks on Islam, attacks on each other ... what is the matter with you people? Jojo throws out blatant nonsense that isn't intended to achieve anything constructive and that only the most generous would treat as reasonable discussion and everyone rises to the bait. Abd, to his credit, (mostly) responds to Jojo politely, Jojo responds with more outrageous assertions and endless ad hominem attacks, and the circle of ridiculousness repeats. Now Peter has been sucked in ... It's one thing to have an off-topic discussion but quite another when a list is hijacked by little else besides off-topic posts. Really, the Vortex list-Mom needs to manage this list a whole lot better if it's to have any relevance to its original goal ... this is why lists die. [mg] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Peter, I consider this an insult. To the best of my recollection this is your 4th insult to me. In all that time, I have not retaliated. Please refrain from this behavior; unless you want me to retaliate. And please, do not use you response to me as an excuse to promote your site again. It's bad taste. One does not go to other people's site to promote and recruit members. There is no insult intended with this. But if you feel that this is an attack, I will now apologize in advance. Jojo PS. Peter seems to be offended that I used a real life example to illustrate the fallacies of Lomax. I don't believe I have written anything particularly nasty with my real life example. - Original Message - *From:* Peter Gluck *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 8:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age Dear Jojo, Even in my weirdest dreams I have not imagined that one day I will read about the sexual reproductive life of Sus scrofa domestica on Vortex a site dedicated to new energy. Pigs have not much to do with Vortex see the first proverb here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/two-proverbs-trying-to-support-what-i.html I thought you are a spammer prozelytizing, attacking your re-elected President, trying to demonstrate that Darwin was a poor stupid individual, you don't care for religious freedom and for respect for the other 11,499 religions except yours and so on but all these are only illusions and errors. Practice shows you are like Jack London's inevitable white man:unstoppable and it is useless to ban you or to boycott you, you are the fatum of Vortex. I have serious doubts Vortex will survive intellectually and will not be converted in an anything goes Forum. Be happy, I am accepting your presence and all I wish is that some people will not forget LENR completely. It would e reasonable if you do not comment to this message. Peter On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to correct Lomax's lies from actual experience. I raise sows in my farm. When the piglets grow up to become gilts (teenage female pigs that are virgins are called gilts.), they exhibit the equivalent of what we would call menstrual cycle. They show the
Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
The only problem with filters is that they are a blunt tool so when someone you're filtering out is in a thread that you're interested in you can miss out on something useful. Sure, you might assume that there's really not much you'll miss by using filtering but it's not really an optimal solution. What's needed is a moderator who can enforce adult, civilized behavior. [m] On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Does anyone know how to get William Beaty to manage the conduct on this list? He is probably busy with the holiday season stuff. He'll get around to responding by and by. Frankly, I don't understand why people are worked up about this. Maybe it is just me floating along in a mellow decongestant stupor but I don't see a problem. (Pseudoephedrine decongestants are the second best medical mood enhancers, after alcohol. You get a sense why they make such potent illegal drugs.) This is why God gave us e-mail filters. You click a few times and presto, the messages and Joro Jaro vanish into the cybernetic continuum. It is one of the great features of life in the 21st century. Better than book clubs in 1965 when you could not escape the boors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Friday, December 28, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: but it raises the question if/when will enter LENR such lists? When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. So far, LENR is, to be perhaps somewhat poetic, no more than a willow-the-wisp ... [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear reactions cannot occur in a system such as PF's. This theory was falsified which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From the preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*. The theory tested was the standard interpretation of physics which states that it should be impossible for nuclear reactions to occur in systems such as those created by PF. This interpretation is testable. It was tested. It was falsified. Dr. Norman Ramsey was co-chair of the DoE's cold fusion review panel. He was was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. He was also the only Nobel laureate. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble to the DoE panel's report as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: James, Which theory is that? [mg] On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Yes, there is a widely accepted testable theory. It has been tested and falsified by experiment. That's the way science works, Mark. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I am sorry to be abrasive, but this is ignorant nonsense. Alas, you really aren't sorry. That's just a technique to try to avoid being called out for incivility. No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. (I was going to continue using one but that sounds stuffy ... in the following you should be read as people generally and not as you, Jed Rothwell) You choose to resort to incivility in an attempt to add emotional force to your arguments or because you are so attached to your viewpoint and so enraged by the unwillingness of others to agree with you that you attempt to bully them into agreeing or leaving the argument. What the Japanese do is neither here nor there and doesn't justify incivility. Far closer? How close? Next week? Next month? That would depend on academic politics and funding. It is not a scientific question. If a reasonable level of funding had been made available in 1990 we would probably have cold fusion automobiles by now. Far closer was you assertion, not mine. So, your assertion really is it could be closer. To address the technical issues: let us compare cold fusion to plasma fusion. A tokamak reactor costs $1 billion to $15 billion. The longest, most powerful plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL was 10 MW lasting 0.6 s; 6 MJ. It took far more input energy to sustain the reaction than it produced. Cold fusion reactions have produced 150 MJ at 100 W or more, lasting up to 3 months. In some cases it takes not input energy to sustain the reaction. That is, by any measure, more practical than plasma fusion. Great. When can I heat my house with one? That's what I'm getting at: Practical application. The only thing lacking in cold fusion is control over the reaction. If we had that, we could easily make prototype devices. But we don't have that so we don't have prototypes. Plasma fusion research has continued for 60 years. It costs more every month than the entire amount of money spent on cold fusion since 1989. So, cold fusion has made far more progress per dollar and per man-hour of work. OK, but where's the beef? And throwing in other scientific experiments - no matter what their payoff might or might not be - is simply setting up a straw man argument ... A scientific experiment cannot be evaluated by payoff but only by the s/n ratio and the knowledge it contributes to science as a whole. Science is not a practical or useful endeavor. It sometimes contributes practical results to daily life, but this is never assured, it is cannot be used as a metric to evaluate the results. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, such as Newton's, had no practical use for decades. But you have consistently argued that cold fusion *will* have a world-changing payoff ... you're not in it just for the science, you're in it for the payoff. There is no practical device yet, merely a lot of unverified claims and overdue promises. (snip, snip, snip) Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable theory? Theory has no bearing on the validity of a scientific claim. There was not theory for nuclear reactions in the sun before 1939, and no theory at all describing cellular reproduction (DNA) before 1952, but there was not a scientist on earth who denied that the sun shines and that cells reproduce. In the case of cold fusion, phenomena have been observed that are believed to be the result of a novel physical process. No one has been able to explain what causes the phenomena and no one has been able to produce a device that is useful that uses whatever the phenomena is. I'm not asking for a handwaving kind of explanation, I'm asking for a theory that can be tested. You are asking for something that has never, in the history of science, been considered a valid criterion to reject an experimental claim. NEVER. You turn the scientific method upside-down. First we discover things by experiment. Then we explain them. Not being able to explain them is never a reason to reject experiments. What did Peter originally ask? when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [m]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: No, it is pro-forma, Japanese style. It is what you say before you are forced to be uncivil. One is never forced to be uncivil. I cannot describe the facts of the matter without showing that your assertions are ignorant nonsense. So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? If you want to promote understanding of LENR and be respected as a proponent you need to stop being emotional and ritualistically antagonistic. If someone insults your mother, sure, feel free to lash out if you must but no matter how much you feel people are ignorant, uninformed, or, for that matter, disagree with you about the existence or reality of LENR, that's hardly an excuse to be unpleasant. Moreover, aggression and incivility won't get LENR funded any quicker ... it will simply turn off those people who don't believe in LENR from engaging with you. I'm sure you'll reply with but I've had it with fill in insult like you who don't get it!! I'm sure you have but let's say that you are completely right about LENR. Will being uncivil get you anywhere faster? Is it a mature way to get what you want? If you haven't got the stamina for the long game better it's usually better not to play. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. What do you propose do do about this? Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? Not my job. As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? I'd love to see those tests made. Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Regards, Mark. On Dec 29, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: FURTHERMORE, the notion that cold fusion results are unconvincing or close to the noise is also gross ignorance. People who say this know nothing about experimental significance. I never said the results were unconvincing ... as I've written before, there appears to be something going on but what that something is and a theory about what causes it is missing. The tritium findings alone are definitive. After Storms, Bockris and Will published in 1989 and 1990, all doubts about the existence of cold fusion were erased. Any scientist who questions this either knows nothing about the results, or he is an ignorant fool such as Taubes or Huizenga. This is like questioning the existence of radioactivity or X-rays in 1900. Again, I was talking about testable theories not about observations. After Fleischmann and McKubre published their calorimetric data, all doubts about the excess heat were put to rest. If you think it might be chemical, the way D. Morrison did, you are innumerate. You do not appreciate the difference between 1 and 1,700 (the factor by which Fleischmann's results exceed the limits of chemistry). I assert categorically: anyone who questioned these things after 1990 is either irrational or an ignorant fool. Again with the emotionally charged rhetoric. This is the kind of inappropriate response that allows this list to veer off course into incivility. (snip, snip, snip) People are often right about one thing but wrong about another. Or objective and careful about one subject, and bigoted fools about another. The human mind is not uniform or consistent. Opinions about the irrationality and inconsistency of the human mind are not what we're talking about. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to attack the man while you address the argument? Look, I am sorry, No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based sciences, but this is not one of them.) Ye gods, man. Calm down. Nobody is going to die over this ... well, maybe you from a heart attack if you insist on being so wound up You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. (snip, snip, snip) You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's not hard to grasp and it's not what I wrote in response to Peter. (snip, snip, snip Let me state, once again, my understanding: 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. What's wrong about any of that? And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]? My answer was When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [mg]
Fwd: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
-- Forwarded message -- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic To: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: Ed, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Mark, I don't know if you read my e-mail or not, but I do not post to vortex, so this is my way of communicating. Jed, is right, the effect has been proven beyond doubt. You are correct in stating that the effect has not resulted in a useful product yet. My question is, so what? So hat?! We have had a number of companies and individuals making significant claims about productizing something that they contend is CF/LENR. Much excitement has been generated about this and many people contend, apparently without much evidence, that we'll have jam tomorrow. You might be in it just for the science but if CF/LENR can be turned into a product it will be, as many people contend, revolutionary. Yes Mark, I know. The question is, Does LENR produce useful energy or does it not? If it does, the potential to create ideal energy is revolutionary, as you say. And I'm not in it for the science. I'm in it to discover what is real and whether the promise will come about. What is your goal? What do you propose do do about this? Er, nothing other than write about it and attempt to figure out who's on to something and who's simply hyping that market for whatever reasons. That is my goal as well. To do this a person MUST understand the science and know all that has been discovered. That is one reason I wrote my book about the subject. That is the reason I still do experiments, hundreds by present count. That is why I'm now attempting to explain the observations. Rossi is a great example of the problem with the CF/LENR world. He's grandiose, evasive, makes unsubstantiated claims, and generally confuses the picture all the while promising jam tomorrow. Rossi is slightly crazy. So are many people in science. This does not stop them from making important discoveries. The only important question for me, Are any of the claims made by Rossi true? After much study, my answer is some are true and some are false. Only the true claims matter to me. Do you propose to ignore the effect and reject the claims Nope. And I haven't ignored the phenomena. Indeed, I admit that there appears to be evidence of something remarkable. I just want to find out what's real and what's fake. I have the same goal. The difference is that many people read what you write and only a few read what I write. or to work at getting enough funding so that the effect can be made useful? Not my job. Not you job but a result of what you write nevertheless. You have the power to influence support or cool interest. Your choice. People who are ignorant of what has been discovered and its implications generally write negative articles because the claims do not look real to them. In contrast, when all that is known is considered, a writer has reason to support the idea. This is common human nature. No article is truly objective but depends on the knowledge of the writer. Some writers are ignorant and some are well informed. This challenge is especially important in LENR because the science is so unknown even to well informed people. Jed is especially well informed and expects this to be true of anyone who writes about the subject. As for a testable theory, dozens of theories have been proposed to explain CF. Most are not testable. I have suggested one that provides 12 testable predictions. What more do you want? I'd love to see those tests made. Me too, but this requires money and interest by a major laboratory. All else is useless wishful thinking. Now, money and time must be provided to make the tests. Are you willing to encourage such tests? Sure, to the extent of writing about them if they're done ... I'm not in the business of fund raising for other people's projects ... I have enough on my plate as it is. That said, if someone with deep pockets should ask me what would be a good outlier project to invest in, I'd definitely tell him or her to talk to Ed Storms. Good, that is all I ask. Also, when you are tempted to write that no testable theories have been proposed, I hope you think again about what I said and have described in papers. So, what are you doing about getting funding for you or someone else to test your theories? Funding comes because someone who has a lot of money reads about an idea and then seeks out people who can explore and advance the idea, generally with a profit in mind. Such people contact me occasionally. Unfortunately, interest has not reached the level required to test theory. People want what Rossi promises, a working device that can make money. Ed
Re: [Vo]:(OT) epidemic and endemic
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Mark Gibbs And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... Peter's fault? Whatever... I was joking. Of course it wasn't his fault ... this may not be the place for levity. When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. ** A demonstrably practical device, sure, yeah, I get that. I suspect everyone on this list gets that. But A demonstrable testable theory? Nope. I wrote a testable theory ... you even quoted me! Well, sure, it would be nice to have one of those things lying around in the laboratory. But in its absence I sure as hell wouldn't let it stop me from trying to put a little jam on my toast. That seems to be what lot of people are attempting to do these days. Obviously one of those individuals includes the highly controversial Italian, Rossi. Is Rossi and his little dog-and-pony show for real? I don’t know. Hopefully, we’ll know the answer to that soon. You miss my point ... it was or not and. Either would be the answer to Peter's question. At least that what I was suggesting. I give up. It seems you and Jed are committed to being right about the argument you want to have. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Suppose Watson tells people cancer treatment does not work?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** What if the entire corpus of physics is loaded, and Watson concludes that LENR is the superior energy solution for the future of humanity, far more so than hot fusion or fission ? ** What if Watson concludes LENR is a load of baloney? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Suppose Watson tells people cancer treatment does not work?
Just consider, whatever conclusion, other than I don't know, Watson might come to, it will please no one no matter how logical it might be ... or rather seem to be. And rightly so because unless Watson concludes I don't know the question of whether Watson had enough data or the right data or the correct deductive process or fill in your objection would still exist. As has been pointed out many times on this list, today's truth frequently becomes yesterday's lack of understanding. [m] On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Most people would not be surprised, so it's kind of boring. 2013/1/17 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** What if the entire corpus of physics is loaded, and Watson concludes that LENR is the superior energy solution for the future of humanity, far more so than hot fusion or fission ? ** What if Watson concludes LENR is a load of baloney? [mg] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Nanor
Does anyone know what the status is of the Nanor device at MIT? Has it been kept running? Has anyone duplicated the device and successfully run it? Thanks in advance. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Swartz has been very secretive. His web site: http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff. Probably the most info publicly available: http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/ And the video is AWOL. Sigh. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
I read that ... which is to say I scanned it but I can't draw any conclusions from it. Anyone willing to apply their huge brain to that document and summarize it? Thanks in advance. [m] On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: And the video is AWOL. Sigh. Damn. Well the .pdf is there: http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/HagelsteinPdemonstra.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
I must be behind the curve ... and what might KILOR and MEGAR be? [m] On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: technologists are waiting for KILOR and MEGAR Peter On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: There was no other video of the NANOR publicly available other than Barry Simon's (that I know). Mitchell Swartz's two summary of the course posted on Cold Fusion Times was re-posted by me here: http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/ Hagelstein's video is of theoretical issues, and speaks of NANOR here and there for support, but there is no NANOR video included (I didn't get through it to the end though!) From the release on his website, it seems that there may be some video from the Swartz portion of the course soon. On 1/31/13 7:28 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Swartz has been very secretive. His web site: http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff. Probably the most info publicly available: http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/ And the video is AWOL. Sigh. [m] -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Nanor
Peter,
Come on! Are those acronyms, flavors of vodka, ... What are you talking
about?
[mg]
On Thursday, January 31, 2013, Peter Gluck wrote:
Easy to answer: something GREAT(ER) - much greater, useful and efficient.
Generating intense heat, usable as a practical energy source.
Science is magnificent, technology works for us.
Peter
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Mark Gibbs
mgi...@gibbs.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mgi...@gibbs.com');
wrote:
I must be behind the curve ... and what might KILOR and MEGAR be?
[m]
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Peter Gluck
peter.gl...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'peter.gl...@gmail.com');
wrote:
technologists are waiting for KILOR and MEGAR
Peter
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'r...@hush.com'); wrote:
There was no other video of the NANOR publicly available other than
Barry Simon's (that I know).
Mitchell Swartz's two summary of the course posted on Cold Fusion Times
was re-posted by me here:
http://coldfusionnow.org/2nd-week-summary-of-cold-fusion-101/
Hagelstein's video is of theoretical issues, and speaks of NANOR here
and there for support, but there is no NANOR video included (I didn't get
through it to the end though!)
From the release on his website, it seems that there may be some video
from the Swartz portion of the course soon.
On 1/31/13 7:28 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Terry Blanton
hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'hohlr...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Swartz has been very secretive. His web site:
http://world.std.com/~mica/jettech.html
Yep, that's a lot of ... er, stuff.
Probably the most info publicly available:
http://coldfusionnow.org/jet-energy-nanor-device-at-mit-continuing-to-operate-months-later/
And the video is AWOL. Sigh.
[m]
--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'r...@coldfusionnow.org');
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Tech Predictions
http://www.polratings.com/predictions Currently they're all IT predictions but anyone care to predict what will happen in CF in 2013? If you have an insight, fire away: http://www.polratings.com/predictions/prediction-submission/ [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
How about throwing in some predictions on world resource use, nuclear power, wind power, robots, the erosion of funding for HF, or the zombie apocalypse? [mg] On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The IT predictions are interesting! I have sworn off trying to predict the future of cold fusion because it determined by politics, not technology. If it was technology we could spot a trend or extrapolate from what has happened. But the progress of cold fusion -- or likely lack of progress -- depends entirely on emotions. To be blunt, it is stymied by fanatics who oppose science and academic freedom. People repeatedly set up carefully devised funding with government agencies and private donors. Everything is lined up. Approvals are given. Then, at the last minute, Robert Park or one his crowd hears about it, raises a stink, threatens people's careers, pulls strings, and the whole project goes down the tubes. Or the meeting is cancelled, or the book is not printed. Every few months I hear about that kind of thing. As long as we face this kind of opposition there is not likely to be much funding or progress. It is a miracle the conference at U. Missouri is on track, and their research is still funded. Progress also depends to some extent on people such as Rossi, who are, shall we say, unpredictable. Self centered. Uncooperative. Prone to hurting their own interests. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. Which is hardly god-like ... it seems to me that the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) is what a true god should be ... the alpha and omega ... all other flavors of god are, at best, demi-gods. So, if god is an experimentalist that would imply that he doesn't know the outcome of his experiments and therefore he/she is not a true god. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. A true god would not answer prayers as he would have created the conditions that required your prayers and would have determined the outcome presumably prior to genesis (when the universe was on the drawing board, so to speak) so your prayers would make no difference other than to be what he wanted you to do. If there is, indeed, a true god then we're nothing but automatons or puppets going about our pre-ordained existences and everything is as it was intended to be and can never be otherwise. If I believed that I would have to shoot myself. And that would have preordained anyway. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Deadly insect drones of the future
Too late: http://www.indiegogo.com/robotdragonfly/x/1658702 ... basic version to be priced at $250 without camera and a camera-less silent version at $280 (perfect for stealth toxic chemical delivery). Surveillance version with two cameras (one HD) with an on-board computer that may be powerful enough for UAV operation for $1,499. The project raised $1,140,975 on a goal of $110,000. [m] On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The people at General Dynamics should think twice about developing these things. Sooner or later everyone will have one, and every public figure from the President down will be endangered.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
When I recently suggested in response to Peter Gluck's question [1] that a testable theory was a necessity for LENR to be recognized as a great invention [2], it sure seemed like you all disagreed. It sure sounds like you now think a theory is required ... [m] [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74653.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74654.html On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: However, Abd misses a basic consequence of what a theory does. A theory is not designed to promote LENR, to make it acceptable, or even to satisfy skeptics.* A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings the process under control.* The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. *Until we can bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. * We will not arrive at this understanding without using some rules and agreements about what needs to be explained and apply this information to a explanation. The only issue of importance here is whether the discussion contributes to this process or distracts from it.
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: It makes no sense to demand a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device. Science does not work that way. It usually starts with discovery and then progresses to theory, to practical device. (On rare occasions the theory comes first.) Exactly. Once again, Rothwell misses the point. The issue here is not about science, it's about technology and making something that works because the original question was about what would make LENR recognized. Gibbs is putting the cart before the horse. He is not the only one. Many professional scientists who should know better are also saying this. The only thing that matters when it comes to getting recognition and funding and changing the world is the cart. If we have a working cart that gets us where we want to go then we can wait on finding out what's pulling us around. And the need for theory is as Storms pointed out: A theory allows the process to be made reproducible and brings the process under control. The CONSEQUENCE of this understanding is the important aspect of a theory. Until we can bring the phenomenon under control, I do not believe it will be accepted or made commercially useful. Then again, perhaps theory is the wrong word ... perhaps technique would be more appropriate. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: They did not need to put first-principles theories of flight in their patent. Gibbs seems to think this has been a requirement all along. O'Malley is making unfounded assumptions. Gibbs never wrote or implied any such thing. Well, not to quibble or split hairs, but you said the Wrights had a theory of lift. They had no theory. They did not know what caused lift. They did not try to learn that. Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: explaining LENR - II To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com (snip, snip, snip) The Wright Brothers had a theory - it was called the theory of lift. They were the first to understand this process, which allowed them to have the success that was missing when flight was attempted without this understanding. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Gibbs didn't say anything about the Wright Brothers ... that was Ed Storms: Wrong person! Ed was speaking loosely. Ah, so if Ed speaks loosely it's OK and forgivable but if I do such a thing I'm simply wrong? The point is, it wasn't a theory, it was data. Ed raised the issue of the necessity of a theory and I get/got his point and I agree that's the wrong term ... as I suggested, technique might be better as that's exactly what's the problem and, indeed, what the Wright Brothers had to contend with ... they had no theory just techniques that worked to greater and lesser degrees just as you explain regarding McKubre's preparation of loaded Pd. And here we come back again to the question of what is this thing that's called LENR? Let's call lab stuff such as Cellini's work and whatever Rossi and Defkalion are doing, experiments. So: 1. There is claimed to be anomalous heat generation in some experiments 2. The experiments are not reliably repeatable 3. To date there is no theory that has been tested that explains the anomalous heat generation Is that a fair summary? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be automated? Jed's original assertion was Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the experiments (or tests or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the technology of LENR is understood in any deep way or on the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not. [mg] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be removed from the cell and be restarted. But, at some point, the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process. This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR. Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process. Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!! As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas. Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important. Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this method. People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range. Ed On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: A question for Ed: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: The definition of success rate in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones? Regarding the four cathodes that worked robustly, and repeatedly ... how long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made? [mg]
[Vo]:Gizmag: NASA's basement reactor
BTW, did everyone see the Gizmag article NASA's basement reactor ( http://m.gizmag.com/article/26309). It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I was intrigued by this section: According to Zawodny, LENR isn’t what was thought of as cold fusion and it doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear forces, which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The LENR process involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak forces into energy. Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water. The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation. The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than it needs to get it going. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said. “Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency.” Let the comments begin ... [mg]
[Vo]:Rethinking wind power
“People have often thought there’s no upper bound for wind power—that it’s one of the most scalable power sources,” says Harvard University applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don’t seem likely to “run out” on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates behind it a wind shadow in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 Watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 Watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power?et_cid=3110245et_rid=523913766linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f02%2frethinking-wind-power
[Vo]:Fwd: NASA Does Cold Fusion
I don't think this link has been posted to this list yet: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html ** ** [m]
[Vo]:Light particles illuminate the vacuum
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/light-particles-illuminate-vacuum In an article published in the PNAS scientific journal, researchers from Aalto University and the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland showed experimentally that vacuum has properties not previously observed. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, it is a state with abundant potentials. Vacuum contains momentarily appearing and disappearing virtual pairs, which can be converted into detectable light particles. The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, virtual particles can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed. In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.
[Vo]:Is a Comet on a Collision Course with Mars?
http://www.universetoday.com/100298/is-a-comet-on-a-collision-course-with-mars/ There is an outside chance that a newly discovered comet might be on a collision course with Mars. Astronomers are still determining the trajectory of the comet, named C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring), but at the very least, it is going to come fairly close to the Red Planet in October of 2014. “Even if it doesn’t impact it will look pretty good from Earth, and spectacular from Mars,” wrote Australian amateur astronomer Ian Musgravehttp://astroblogger.blogspot.com/, “probably a magnitude -4 comet as seen from Mars’s surface.” The comet was discovered in the beginning of 2013 by comet-hunter Robert McNaught at the Siding Spring Observatory in New South Wales, Australia. According to a discussion on the IceInSpace amateur astronomy forumhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=950710 when the discovery was initially made, astronomers at the Catalina Sky Survey in Arizona looked back over their observations to find “prerecovery” images of the comet dating back to Dec. 8, 2012. These observations placed the orbital trajectory of comet C/2013 A1 right through Mars orbit on Oct. 19, 2014. However, now after 74 days of observations, comet specialist Leonid Eleninhttp://spaceobs.org/en/tag/c2013-a1-siding-spring/ notes that current calculations put the closest approach of the comet at a distance of 109,200 km, or 0.00073 AU from Mars in October 2014. That close pass has many wondering if any of the Mars orbiters might be able to acquire high-resolution images of the comet as is passes by. But as Ian O’Neill from Discovery Spacehttp://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/could-a-comet-hit-mars-in-2014-130225.htm points out, since the comet has only been observed for 74 days (so far), so it’s difficult for astronomers to forecast the comet’s precise location in 20 months time. “Comet C/2013 A1 may fly past at a very safe distance of 0.008 AU (650,000 miles),” Ian wrote, “but to the other extreme, its orbital pass could put Mars directly in its path. At time of Mars close approach (or impact), the comet will be barreling along at a breakneck speed of 35 miles per second (126,000 miles per hour).” Elenin said that since C/2013 A1 is a hyperbolic comet and moves in a retrograde orbit, its velocity with respect to the planet will be very high, approximately 56 km/s. “With the current estimate of the absolute magnitude of the nucleus M2 = 10.3, which might indicate the diameter up to 50 km, the energy of impact might reach the equivalent of staggering 2×10¹º megatons!” An impact of this magnitude would leave a crater 500 km across and 2 km deep, Elenin said. [image: Fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on approach to Jupiter (NASA/HST)]http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shoemaker-levy_9_on_1994-05-17.png Fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on approach to Jupiter (NASA/HST) While the massive Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 (15 km in diameter) that crashed into Jupiter in 1994 was spectacular as seen from Earth orbit by the Hubble Space Telescope, an event like C/2013 A1 slamming into Mars would be off the charts. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/100298/is-a-comet-on-a-collision-course-with-mars/#ixzz2M8XbWdrA
[Vo]:Is a Comet on a Collision Course with Mars?
(Sing to the tune As Time Goes By)
And so, it's come to this
A miss is just a miss
When a comet's passing by
The fundamental laws apply
Across the sky ...
[mg]
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
So, a miss is just a miss. The fundamental things apply. (Newtonian
physics).
[Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flow
[Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true And #13 is ... [m] 13 Cold fusion AFTER 16 years, it's back. In fact, cold fusion never really went away. Over a 10-year period from 1989, US navy labs ran more than 200 experiments to investigate whether nuclear reactions generating more energy than they consume - supposedly only possible inside stars - can occur at room temperature. Numerous researchers have since pronounced themselves believers. With controllable cold fusion, many of the world's energy problems would melt away: no wonder the US Department of Energy is interested. In December, after a lengthy review of the evidence, it said it was open to receiving proposals for new cold fusion experiments. That's quite a turnaround. The DoE's first report on the subject, published 15 years ago, concluded that the original cold fusion results, produced by Martin Fleischmannhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.100-interview-fusion-in-a-cold-climate.html and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and unveiled at a press conference in 1989, were impossible to reproduce, and thus probably false. The basic claim of cold fusion is that dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - in which oxygen is combined with the hydrogen isotope deuterium - can release a large amount of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes supposedly allows deuterium nuclei to move into palladium's molecular lattice, enabling them to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing a blast of energy. The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory. That doesn't matter, according to David Nagelhttp://www.ece.seas.gwu.edu/people/nagel.htm, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. The experimental case is bulletproof, he says. You can't make it go away.
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1] to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ... [m] [1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Please note, that's from 2005. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Novam Research comments on eCat
Interesting lack of objectivity: During the congress I met Andrea Rossi for the first time. In my estimation he is kind, competent and reputable. [mg] On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Further to the thread about gammas, here are these money quotes from the PDF by Lichtenberg concerning the reaction in Rossi's devices: About the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) within the ECAT systems: - the details of the LENR processes are still not yet known - the formerly assumed main reaction, i.e. the transmutation from nickel into copper, seems to be only a side effect which does not yield significant amounts of energy - transmutations from nickel into other nickel isotopes and iron were also reported / detected 4 - a participant did remark that the measured gamma radiation indicates that a transmutation from hydrogen into helium takes place. This comment was appreciated by Andrea Rossi but he did not confirm the actual presence of this process I now take the precaution of pointing out I am just relaying the information in the PDF and make no suggestions about the credibility of the author or the claims, lest this become a point of confusion for some. :) In the PDF, there is a claim that even for the Hot Cat, the COP is 6. In light of Jed's complaints about the inapplicability of COP to a LENR device, I'm curious how they are deriving this number, assuming for the moment that everything is being reported in good faith. One detail I like in the bullet points is the last one, about helium. I suspect that is the d+p → 3He variety. Note also that transmutations are reported to be a side phenomenon. In a just world, I think the Nobel Prize would be split between Rossi, the dogged and determined LENR researchers, Ron Maimon, and Robin, for applying Maimon's theory to nickel. Robin would only get a token amount, though, because he didn't really think it was possible. Eric On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: http://novam-research.com/resources/ECAT.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Novam Research comments on eCat
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Interesting lack of objectivity: During the congress I met Andrea Rossi for the first time. In my estimation he is kind, competent and reputable. Why do you say this reflects a lack of objectivity? What is the point of a public report from a consulting and or analysis company? To promote credibility in that company. As such the report title, ECAT – A novel and environmentally friendly LENR-based energy technology, sets our expectations that it will reveal some hard evidence to support the title yet all the report does is re-hash existing claims and assertions most of which come from Rossi himself. To then go on and from the first person assert that the promoter of the technology is kind reveals either naiveté or bias and your comments about his history do not inspire confidence in the report, his objectivity, or his accumen. I know, I know ... I'm being harsh but this report smacks of boosterism more than anything else and, as such, merely makes the field of LENR even more hype-ridden. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data
Are the fine details of the Toyota experimental set up known? Has anyone tried to replicate that configuration? On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Others said that the Toyota research and the NEDO program were stopped because progress was too slow (I agree), and we determined this did not align with our corporate goals (which I think is nonsense), and regarding the NEDO project we never replicated (which was an outright lie). Who were the others? And who delivered the outright lie? [m]
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.bewrote: Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the reactor goes out of control. Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control? Does it melt down or just stop working? [mg]
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us about the type and intensity of the radiation? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs asked about melt down which has a particular meaning in the context of nuclear reactors. Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning, melt down. Oh Yes It Does. Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power, such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent. That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it, which she will not. Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese do not wish to discuss the matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response
Consider yourself asked ... oh, and what type of radiation was/would be involved? [mg] On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you require the theory behind this overview, just ask.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: There's another way to perpetrate the output hoax, and that's to secrete infrared lasers in the ceiling and heat the device up remotely. Lasers?! Don't you think that seems just a little farfetched? And it raises, once again, as do many of the proposed ways the tests could have been rigged, the question of why go to so much trouble? OK, let's say it's all a hoax ... how much longer can the hoax continue? I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to keep quiet. Given that you can't get four people to agree on how to split a lunch bill, a conspiracy seems unlikely and Rossi as the sole perpetrator seems just as improbable. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs' article featured on major Italian newspaper
We both thank you. [mg] On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: That's pretty good! Bravo for Mark Giggs . . . And for Mark Gibbs. Him too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. [mg] On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a different address. Please standby until he has a chance to respond. This list has benefited you in the past. I suspect your gain exceeds your loss. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I said it was a moot point [1] ... and I have no interest in injuring the list. And, nope, I didn't get the news of the report here. All the same, I value this list and wouldn't want to see it interfered with which is why I asked Kevin and Bill to handle it without me getting Forbes' involved. [m] [1] From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point *moot http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot pointhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/point * (*plural* *moot points http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_points#English s* 1. ... 2. An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. I really don't care what you do to the offender; but, injuring this list is not in your best interest. After all, didn't you get the original story here?
[Vo]:E-Cat Tester's Bios
Does anone have any more in-depth bios of the group that tested the E-Cat. This is what I have so far: Giuseppe Levi Assistant Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy Bologna University Bologna, Italy Bio: http://www.unibo.it/SitoWebDocente/default.htm?upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itTabControl1=TabCV Website: http://www.giuseppelevi.it/ Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/47387224/g-leviand http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabPubsupn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it Evelyn Foschi is in the product development department for medical devices, University of Bologna. Her specialty is X-ray. -- http://andrearossiecat.com/e-cat/members-of-the-3rd-party-report-commission Publications: No. Torbjörn Hartman Senior Research Engineer The Svedberg Laboratory (which specializes in proton therapy and is attached to Uppsala University) Uppsala, Sweden, Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/53814223/torbjorn-hartman?query=Torbj%u00f6rn%20Hartman Bo Höistad Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: http://www.journalogy.net/Author/51661212 Roland Pettersson Senior Lecturer Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/56841550/roland-pettersson Lars Tegnér Professor Emeritus Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden Publications: Doctoral thesis - http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=2pid=diva2:298914 - otherwise apparently not published unless he is also P.-E. Tegnér in which case he's somehow connected to Stockholm University: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/13416120/p-e-tegner Hanno Essen Docent and Lecturer Department of Mechanics of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden Publications: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/12981049/hanno-essen Essen, Rossi's site notes, was at one time critical of Rossi and the E-Cat. Anyone got any citations? [m]
Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis [second copy?]
Which author is a vet? I didn't find any such thing ... [mg] On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Rossi has stated that the testers brought their own cables. A poster here asserts that they were Rossi's cables. As usual, this issue is not addressed by the paper. If I were concerned with my scientific integrity, I would collect together all such comments and re-issue that paper. But if I were a veterinarian, like one of the authors, it wouldn't be a big concern, because I could still make dogs' health better. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet...
Sunil, May I quote you in a Forbes posting? If I may, may I cite your name? Thanks in advance. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi All, My first post, after a couple of year's hiding in the shadows.. Just want to settle a couple of things. Torbjörn Hartman's personal merits (as listed at http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170) state Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.. Assuming the line is written in Swedish (which it is, trust me : ), it says: Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör. These translate into English as: PhD Medical Science, MSc. So, my guess is he did an MSc in Engineering Physics (5 yrs) followed by research/studies in medicine. CivIng does NOT mean Civil Engineer in Sweden. It covers ALL higher level engineering science paths, that lead to a Master's level degree, and are 4-5 years long. The traditional paths being ChemEng, EE, Eng Physics, Computer Science and _Civil_Engineering_ I am bilingual (Swedish/English) and did Engineering Physics (MSc) : ) /Sunil
Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet...
Thanks. You are quoted: The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/24/the-e-cat-testing-team-real-or-ringers/ [mg] On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Mark, Hehe, yes to both, I suppose, though as stated I am guessing at what he actually studied. (Could ask him I suppose.) I found these, btw (after I posted, I swear!) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._med._vet. and http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilingenj%C3%B6r .. so it's ALL *facts* : D /Sunil -- From: mgi...@gibbs.com Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:50:29 -0700 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hartman's not a vet... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sunil, May I quote you in a Forbes posting? If I may, may I cite your name? Thanks in advance. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi All, My first post, after a couple of year's hiding in the shadows.. Just want to settle a couple of things. Torbjörn Hartman's personal merits (as listed at http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo?id=N96-5170) state Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing.. Assuming the line is written in Swedish (which it is, trust me : ), it says: Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör. These translate into English as: PhD Medical Science, MSc. So, my guess is he did an MSc in Engineering Physics (5 yrs) followed by research/studies in medicine. CivIng does NOT mean Civil Engineer in Sweden. It covers ALL higher level engineering science paths, that lead to a Master's level degree, and are 4-5 years long. The traditional paths being ChemEng, EE, Eng Physics, Computer Science and _Civil_Engineering_ I am bilingual (Swedish/English) and did Engineering Physics (MSc) : ) /Sunil
Re: [Vo]:More delusional scientists, and over 60,000 publications!
Mark, If I get a chance may I quote you? [mg] On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Mark Iverson markiver...@charter.netwrote: There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature superconductive material since its discovery in 1986, said Jak Chakhalian, professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. Unfortunately, as of today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed matter physics. ** ** After over 6 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert himself says, “we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism…” ** ** sarcasm ON ** ** Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest conspiracy to maintain their funding… ** ** Makes LENR look like small potatoes… ** ** sarcasm OFF ** ** -Mark Iverson ** **
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect hand waving began as a derisive reference to occult activities since these might involve the waving of hands and/or a wand. . You would be completely wrong. In fact, that is perhaps the most ridiculous conclusion anyone has come to so far. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
What is a Hydroton? I googled the term and all I could find were references
to a clay-based plant growing medium much prized by marijuana growers ...
[mg]
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'stor...@ix.netcom.com');
wrote:
Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull
away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line.
Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If
outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will
damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well
understood.
In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The
temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the
length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior.
The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical
distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less
than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of
negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The
barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance
to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The
response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers
the energy of the system.
Ed,
With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the
emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of
atoms on the system. The change is analogous to an exothermic chemical
reaction which requires some activation energy to initiate but the reaction
products are in a lower energy state. Because of the shape of the coulomb
hill the hill can only be climbed if the energy emitted increases with
each cycle.
The Hydroton allows the Coulomb barrier to be reduced enough for the
nuclei to respond and emit excess energy. Because the resonance immediately
increases the distance, the ability or need to lose energy is lost before
all the extra energy can be emitted. If the distance did not increased, hot
fusion would result. The distance is again reduced, and another small burst
of energy is emitted. This process continues until ALL energy is emitted
and the intervening electron is sucked into the final product.
In your model, the coulomb barrier appears to be like a hill in a uniform
gravitational field. It is possible to climb such a barrier in steps by
emitting the same amount of energy with each cycle, but this barrier does
not correspond with the actual barrier that exists between protons.
Climbing a genuine coulomb barrier requires more energy with each cycle, so
that requires more energy be emitted with each cycle. The extra energy
emitted heats the lattice even more and produces more powerful vibrations
of the lattice which can push the protons even closer together.
I might add, all theories require a similar process. All theories require
a group of hydron be assembled, which requires emission of Gibbs energy.
Once assembled, the fusion process must take place in stages to avoid the
hot fusion result, as happens when the nuclei get close using a muon and
without the ability to limit the process. Unfortunately, the other theories
ignore these requirements.
The proton has nothing to do with the work done at each step. This work
comes from the temperature. The photon results because the assembly has too
much mass-energy for the distance between the nuclei. If the nuclei
touched, the assembly would have 24 MeV of excess mass-energy if they were
deuterons. If they are close but not touching, the stable mass-energy
would be less. At a critical distance short of actually touching, the
nuclei can know that they have too much mass energy. How they know this
is the magic that CF has revealed.
Here is the magic: they share an electron and it is through this common
ground that they know. If they don't share an electron they won't give up
any excess mass-energy until they are touching at which point they give it
up all at once which is what happens in hot fusion.
Harry
Re: [Vo]:On deception
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude has waved his hands and said there might be a method of deception that he has not thought of yet. As I have often pointed out, such assertions cannot be tested or falsified. There might be an error in Ohm's law we have not yet discovered, but until you specify what that error actually is, you have no basis for arguing that law may be wrong. Ah, so it's OK to argue that Cude is, in effect, hand-waving away Ohm's law and that's indefensible because that law is accepted but it's not OK to argue that Carat's dismissal of conventional physics as being wrong about LENR is also hand waving? [m]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel
Daniel, The link you gave (May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958) doesn't have a posting with the text you quoted and I can't find that text on the site. Can you send a link to the letter from Rossi you quoted? Thanks. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958 TO OUR READERS, REGARDING WIKIPEDIA: I MUST AGAIN GIVE THIS INFORMATION: WIKIPEDIA, AFTER THEY WROTE US ( BY TOM CONOVER) THAT THE PAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED, TODAY AGAIN I SAW ON WIKIPEDIA THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS A SUE PENDING AGAINST ME FOR EVENTS OF MY LIFE OF 20 YEARS AGO, FROM WHICH I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. TODAY AGAIN I TRIED TO CORRECT THE FALSE INFORMATION, BUT NOT ONLY THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN DELETED IN FEW SECONDS ( LESS THAN 1 MINUTE), BUT OUR IT GUY HAS BEEN BANNED TO WRITE AGAIN ON WIKIPEDIA. FROM THIS FACT THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT: 1- I HAVE IRREVOCABLY DECIDED TO SUE WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBELLING. ALL THE MONEY WE WILL OBTAIN AS A REFUND FOR THE DAMAGES THEY HAVE CAUSED, ARE CAUSING AND WILL CAUSE TO US WILL BE GIVEN TO A FAMILY THAT NEEDS IT FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WHO HAS A CANCER 2- I INVITE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE NOT THE FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA, BUT AN INFORMATION ADHERENT TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, CAN GO TO http://WWW.INGANDREAROSSI.COM http://www.ingandrearossi.com/ I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH I HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1995 ( ARREST THAT CAUSED THE BANKRUPTS OF PETROLDRAGON AND OTHER MY COMPANIES, AFTER AN ASSASSINATION OF MY CHARACTER THAT NOW SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO REMAKE) AND WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION. NO SUES OF ANY KIND ARE PENDING AGAINST ME AND I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE CRIMES FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN ARRESTED !. AND WIKIPEDIA KNOWS THIS, THEY KNOW THIS, BUT CONTINUE TO PUBLISH A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY KNOW THAT IT IS FALSE HOW CAN BE POSSIBLE A THING LIKE THIS WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY US THAT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE. THEY KNOW PERFECTLY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT ME IS FALSE, BUT THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THAT INFORMATION, AND REPEATEDLY CANCELLED THE CORRECTIONS, UNTIL TODAY, WHEN THEY, AFTER CANCELLING OUR CORRECTION, HAVE BANNED US FROM THE POSSIBILITY TO WRITE CORRECTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA IS PUBLISHING FALSE INFORMATION OF ME ALSO IF WIKIPEDIA KNOWS PERFECTLY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN IS FALSE. FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE SUED BY US FOR LIBELLING. ANDREA ROSSI -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is suing Wikipedia for libel
Rossi is infuriating. And his caps lock key is stuck. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, that's all I had. Probably he deleted. Well, I hope someone else printed the screen... 2013/5/31 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Daniel, The link you gave (May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958) doesn't have a posting with the text you quoted and I can't find that text on the site. Can you send a link to the letter from Rossi you quoted? Thanks. [mg] On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: May 31st, 2013 at 2:53 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=10#comment-708958 TO OUR READERS, REGARDING WIKIPEDIA: I MUST AGAIN GIVE THIS INFORMATION: WIKIPEDIA, AFTER THEY WROTE US ( BY TOM CONOVER) THAT THE PAGE HAD BEEN CORRECTED, TODAY AGAIN I SAW ON WIKIPEDIA THE FALSE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS A SUE PENDING AGAINST ME FOR EVENTS OF MY LIFE OF 20 YEARS AGO, FROM WHICH I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED. TODAY AGAIN I TRIED TO CORRECT THE FALSE INFORMATION, BUT NOT ONLY THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN DELETED IN FEW SECONDS ( LESS THAN 1 MINUTE), BUT OUR IT GUY HAS BEEN BANNED TO WRITE AGAIN ON WIKIPEDIA. FROM THIS FACT THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT: 1- I HAVE IRREVOCABLY DECIDED TO SUE WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBELLING. ALL THE MONEY WE WILL OBTAIN AS A REFUND FOR THE DAMAGES THEY HAVE CAUSED, ARE CAUSING AND WILL CAUSE TO US WILL BE GIVEN TO A FAMILY THAT NEEDS IT FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WHO HAS A CANCER 2- I INVITE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO HAVE NOT THE FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA, BUT AN INFORMATION ADHERENT TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, CAN GO TO http://WWW.INGANDREAROSSI.COM http://www.ingandrearossi.com/ I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH I HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN 1995 ( ARREST THAT CAUSED THE BANKRUPTS OF PETROLDRAGON AND OTHER MY COMPANIES, AFTER AN ASSASSINATION OF MY CHARACTER THAT NOW SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO REMAKE) AND WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION. NO SUES OF ANY KIND ARE PENDING AGAINST ME AND I HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED FROM ALL THE CRIMES FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN ARRESTED !. AND WIKIPEDIA KNOWS THIS, THEY KNOW THIS, BUT CONTINUE TO PUBLISH A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY KNOW THAT IT IS FALSE HOW CAN BE POSSIBLE A THING LIKE THIS WIKIPEDIA HAS PUBLISHED A FALSE INFORMATION EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY US THAT THE INFORMATION IS FALSE. THEY KNOW PERFECTLY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT ME IS FALSE, BUT THEY REFUSE TO CORRECT THAT INFORMATION, AND REPEATEDLY CANCELLED THE CORRECTIONS, UNTIL TODAY, WHEN THEY, AFTER CANCELLING OUR CORRECTION, HAVE BANNED US FROM THE POSSIBILITY TO WRITE CORRECTIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA IS PUBLISHING FALSE INFORMATION OF ME ALSO IF WIKIPEDIA KNOWS PERFECTLY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN IS FALSE. FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE SUED BY US FOR LIBELLING. ANDREA ROSSI -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. [mg] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: R. W. Emerson wrote: Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage..Do not go where ever the path leads but go where there is none and leave a trail. Ralph Waldo Emerson Fine except for the last sentence. Please do not select a method of calorimetry where is no path! Select a conventional method. The most boring method you can find, with off-the-shelf instruments and textbook techniques that no HVAC engineer would quarrel with. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary proof you can come up with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the effect. The claims are that the device produces significantly over unity, the methods have been alluded to but Rossi is definitely not public with this and he may well be lying (e.g. there may be no catalyst). The effect seems to have been demonstrated by the tests. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. However, if you goal is to convince non-believer then it is best to avoid systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, material emissivity's,. you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps not. Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go in my humble opinion. Indeed, making steam and using it to, say, drive a car across Italy without stopping would be pretty damn convincing. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Ah, now we have it ... it's the questions of reproducability and controlability, But these questions have no bearing on whether the effect is real or not. We're talking about Rossi's device and whether it works, not whether CF/LENR/LENR+/Pixie-Mediated-Power/Whatever is real. If Rossi can make devices that demonstrably and reliably work and don't blow up, he proves the E-Cat is real. If they reliably blow up, he's in the armaments business. [mg]
Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams). [mg] On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: But, seriously, that was an excellent description. Can you supply a link to it? Roger -- From: cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700 Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic. Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP *Fictional miss-identification:* Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column. *Delusions of superiority:* In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars. *Hyper-realistic representation:* This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
[Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Teh Google knows all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans And see: http://bancomicsans.com/main/ [mg] On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Rich Murray wrote: uh, what is Comic Sans ? clueless in Imperial Beach, CA, Rich On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams). I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares away anyone who has no stomach for fringe science. Eric
[Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect rediscovered in Japan
Are there any indications the Reifenschweiler effect produces excess heat along with the decrease in radioactivity? [m] On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not see where I can add a comment to that article in ColdFusionNow but anyway, here are three papers from Otto: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwsomeexperi.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Molecular Impact Steam Technology
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... Richard Aho … or “Smokie” CEO or MIST - tries to defend his device to skeptics. It is not easy to do. There are many red flags and the so-called testing stinks. Now where have we heard that before ... ? He may or may not have something valid That about covers all the options ... but what he does not have is acceptable test data. And that sounds familiar too [m]
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know even though they have no actual evidence of fraud and can't prove anything. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test results. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big blue box – which was shipped out of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina … and which is fairly close to Greensboro and also to “Mayberry” – aka Mt. Airy This is a wild guess, based on a reliable rumor that appeared in 2011 and an updated tip from Barney. If the rumor is not true then Nip it! Nip it in the bud! http://ecatplants.com/e-cat/mayodan-nc-%E2%80%93-the-destination-of-e-cat-plants Heck, if Terry makes the drive up from Hotlanta and AR is nowhere to be found, maybe Thelma Lou will know where he disappeared to…
Re: [Vo]:A partial list of skeptical objections to Levi et al. in Forbes
While you might prefer the skeptics (actually, they are arguably pseudo-skeptics) to compile such a list until someone does and does it right they can keep bringing up the same objections over and over again. I'd suggest it is your opportunity to take the high-ground on objectivity ... My $0.02 [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I've been following the endless arguments about how the tests could have been rigged and it seems like every theory has been repeated over and over again . . . I have not gone through the arguments but as far as I can tell, only two have been proposed: 1. The so-called cheese idea. As I have pointed out, they would discover this when they go to measure voltage. 2. Shanahan's theory that IR cameras do not work, even when you confirm them with thermocouples. The other objections I have noted were not objections at all. They were meaningless. For example, Mary Yugo said that one of the tests was invalid because the reactor was already running when the researchers arrived. So what? That cannot affect the result. Think about the Pu-238 reactor on the Curiosity mars explorer. It was hot from the moment the isotope was separated. The half life is 88 year so it will be palpably hot for hundreds of years, and measurably hot for thousands of years. You cannot turn off this nuclear reaction. But that does not prevent you from measuring the power of the reactor. You start at time X and go to time Y. The fact that the reactor was running before X and continued to run after Y has no impact on your measurement. If anything, this bolsters the evidence that the reactor is not a battery and it has no stored chemical fuel. Another meaningless objection is to the use of 3-phase electricity. It is not harder to measure, and the 2 extra wires are not a rat's nest. A third example would be Milstone's demand that we separately measure the heat from electricity and the anomalous reaction. That is physically impossible. Heat all flows together throughout a reactor. As I tried to explain to him, the only way you can separate two heat sources is when you can measure exactly how big one of them is. Fortunately, in this case, we can. There are several experiments such as Arata's where heat comes from multiple sources including chemical reactions and cold fusion. There is no way to separate them, except by guesswork. That is a serious deficiency. There are also strange, unfounded notions, such as Mary Yugo's assertion that the temperature at the core of the reactor should be 2 times or 6 times higher than the heater envelope because the core produces 2 to 6 times the heat of the electric heater. It doesn't work that way. The vessels are made of metal which conducts heat easily, so the heat quickly flows from one to the other. Anyway the temperature does not start at zero so you would not see 6 times higher numbers. If you had two reactors side by side, insulated from one another, all else being equal the difference between ambient and the reactor core temperature would be proportional to the difference in power . . . but that is a whole different situation. There were a whole bunch of factually correct objections that are not problems at all but rather advantages that should bolster confidence. Levi et al. deliberately underestimated, going to conservative extremes. Several skeptics pointed these underestimations if they were problems, and as if Levi did not notice them. For example, they said the surface area of the reactor was underestimated because it was treated as a flat plain rather than a cylinder. Yes, we know. The authors pointed this out. No, this does not affect the conclusion. There were a few backward assertions. That is, statements that are factually 180 degrees wrong, such as Mary Yugo's complaint that this method is excessively complicated. On the contrary it is the simplest method known to science, with the fewest instruments and only one physical principle, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Other methods are more accurate or precise, but this is the simplest. Also the most reliable once you do some reality checks and calibrations. Then there is the unclassifiable weirdness such as Shanahan's demand that they publish all of the thermocouple data. The authors said the thermocouple tracked the IR camera the whole time, staying just about 2 deg C above it, for an obvious and mundane reason. Okay, so if you want to see that data set, go to Plot 1, Emitted thermal power vs time. Print that out, and draw another line smack on top of the first line. You would not see the 2 deg C difference on this scale. Shanahan refuses to believe the authors because they did not print a graph with two lines right on top of one another. That's hilarious, but it isn't science. but no one who claims it's a fraud seems to be willing to admit they just don't know
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which never DID show up ...) Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only the two posts we discussed. [m]
Re: [Vo]:OT: Way out there! Simon Parks government officieal UFO /Alien encounters
The mere appearance of being normal doesn't mean someone is normal. [mg] On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: It’s the weekend! Time for a brief break! ** ** For all those Vorts who might be interested in some OT far out stuff… ** ** Simon Parks, a British town counsel, who apparently went public back in 2010 about his on-going intimate alien encounters is getting some CNN.com coverage today. Not surprisingly the entire subject is being discussed at cnn.com as entertaining fodder. ** ** I decided to dig a little deeper, as Google is your friend! I found two YouTube files, and audio recording that seems informative. It’s an actual interview with the individual – about 139 minutes in length. ** ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzB6Zth2wm0 ** ** And another video, about an hour long http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/26/town-councillor-simon-parkes-my-mum-was-a-9ft-green-alien-365412/ ** ** At present I make no judgment calls on the matter. I had never heard about the Simon Parks story till I saw the short clip on cnn.com. I’ll only add that over the many years that I’ve gone to UFO meetings I’ve met many individuals who claim to have had CE4K encounters. In my experience such individual seem to fall into two categories. ** ** Category 1: Within 30 seconds it becomes obviously clear that they are certifiable. Fortunately, mostly harmless. ** ** Category 2: They seem just as normal, perceptive, and rational as you or me. ** ** Simon strikes me as belonging n category #2. ** ** Make up your own mind! ;-) ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be taken (as before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below and further assuming that Rossi won't allow anyone to see him start the E-Cat what tamper-proof measuring system would you insert at 'X'? E-Cat --- Controller -X--Wall socket So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that: 1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and may not be unplugged. 2. The test team leaves. 3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof measuring system, and starts it. 4. The test team re-enter, confirm the tamper-proof measuring system has, indeed, not been tampered with and set up the rest of their test gear. So, what does the tamper-proof measuring system? Would that satisfy everyone? [m] On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote: Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube furnace. They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I think he was making two points: 1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work because they had the means to see through it. 2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation. Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I, and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about this aspect of the paper. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat
Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a significant power gain be detectable and verifiable? [mg] On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged... That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will supply plenty of H)? How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous environment?? -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote: Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen). The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat
So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw a gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1% (1.82W/30.05W). [mg] [1] http://data.hugnetlab.com/ On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Hi MarkG, No, you’re not missing anything… a control cell producing some small amount of heat would result in a **conservative** (i.e., lower) estimate of power generated in the test cell… assuming that the test cell is at least several sigma above the control cell so experimental uncertainty was not a reasonable explanation for the excess. -Mark I ** ** *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Gibbs *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:31 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat ** ** Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a significant power gain be detectable and verifiable? ** ** [mg] ** ** ** ** ** ** On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged... That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will supply plenty of H)? How were the cells assembled?? I can't imagine that they were somehow assembled in a vacuum; perhaps in an inert gaseous environment?? -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP cells in Europe and US now showing signs of excess heat On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote: Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was previously alloyed with hydrogen). The control cells have not been exposed to hydrogen yet. Are you suggesting that they might have been, inadvertently? Cheers, S.A. ** **
