RE: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
It is doubtful that there can be a useful USPTO survey on this topic, since no competent attorney these days would use the phrase "cold fusion" in a disclosure. A case in point is Ahern's application. The title is: "Amplification of Energetic Reactions in Metal Nanoparticles". It does not mention cold fusion, and more importantly, Ahern does NOT believe that nuclear fusion is involved in LENR anyway, but essentially the application has been held up for the reason that the examiner believes it applies to cold fusion. In fact the examiner himself cited the Ben Breed application, which is also in litigation. "Low temperature fusion" US 20090122940 A1 I think Ahern's application will go through eventually, and possibly Breed as well - and that the examiner could be reprimanded for overreaching- but that is because the filing was carefully crafted NOT to mention the P&F or cold fusion, and because Ahern believes that the energy comes from a non-nuclear source. However, this kind of challenge by an examiner is costly to pursue. BTW R. Ben Breed was formerly with Raytheon and Hughes (as best I can tell) so he is no lightweight . and he may have an IP ace in the hole. From: Kevin O'Malley Jed: I'm starting to run into folks who think it's crazy to assert that the USPTO won't issue cold fusion patents. Is there a good LENR patent office survey paper you would recommend? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Kevin O'Malley wrote: ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? No, but Britz does. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Jed: I'm starting to run into folks who think it's crazy to assert that the USPTO won't issue cold fusion patents. Is there a good LENR patent office survey paper you would recommend? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles >> and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And >> skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer >> reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? >> > > No, but Britz does. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf > > - Jed > > > >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Metrologically speaking, it doesn't matter if an entity creates excess heat by violating the laws of thermodynamics. What matters is that our instruments work according to the laws of thermodynamics. As long as they do, we can determine with confidence how much excess heat the entity creates. harry On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> >> Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; >> > ***Yup. A lot of people have the IMPRESsion that it challenges the 2nd > law, but that isn't the case at all. In fact here, this accusation that > BECs absorb energy and violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, is a > misguided impression as well. > > > >> it challenges some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is >> the same. That is what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate, >> and difficult to persuade them it is real. >> > ***Difficult but not impossible. That is, unless one gets their paycheck > from the 'hot fusion establishment'. It is orders of magnitude more > difficult to convince someone who is paid not to be convinced. > > >> >> >> If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics >> enough times, those laws are wrong. >> > ***True of any scientific law. Most people don't realize that a > scientific law is simply a mathematically rigorous observation. We have a > law of gravity but no accepted theory of gravity. How many replications > does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be > just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. > > >> >> >> >>> Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. >>> >> >> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. >> > ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would > guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright > brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP > protection and demo'd their device to the army. Even then, Glenn Curtiss > and others tried to steal their IP, with the willing complicity of the > Smithsonian Institution. I would guess that at this point (Rossi being > who he is) that 98% of the population think he's a fraud. Perhaps 90% of > people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a pathological science, on > the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, and perpetual motion > devices. > >>
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Cool. Thanks. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles >> and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And >> skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer >> reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? >> > > No, but Britz does. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf > > - Jed > > > >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles > and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And > skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer > reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? > No, but Britz does. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf - Jed > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of > electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them > such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after > them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, > Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. > > The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of > electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world > replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were > real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of > people, does not understand experimental science. > > > However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or rationality so we > cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about them. We should > concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org. We should > ignore people who will not do their homework. > ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow?
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > . The world has not grown more irrational. > ***I have no proof, but on this point I simply beg to differ. > > > We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is, > we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. > ***On one of these LENR websites, when Obama won the first election, the owner posted an open letter to him saying that this would be the right thing to do. With the sequester engaged, Obama has been selectively cutting certain fed programs. The hot-fusion program is a huge, low-hanging fruit as far as I can see. If LENR got only 5% of those funds, we'd have LENR jet packs by now (well, maybe LENR cars). And Obama hates the military, so he should relish bonking a bunch of nuclear weapons guys on the head.
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
You do not yet appreciate this yet, but a knew field of science that is interested in the theory of quantum computers, atomic imaging, and invisibility clocks are developing the theory that also covers LENR. In this way, every day a half dozen papers are written advancing LENR theory. This theory is not easy to understand and is far removed from common sense. It is on the difficulty level with General Relativity in both conceptual difficulty and theoretical calculation. But It is only a matter of time before somebody connects the two ways of thinking together; one way accepted by science and the other way only associated with a religious like belief in weird experimental results. This time of this fusion is growing near. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the >> finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be >> hundreds or thousands. >> > > I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It > depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity > of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and > difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater > claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme > limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a > mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a > twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. > > In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, > but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to > replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who > now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people > who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also > Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so > on. > > The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of > electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world > replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were > real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of > people, does not understand experimental science. > > Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the > LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major > academic electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective. > > The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or > that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have > zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they > never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no > papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt. > People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any > opinion about it. > > A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange > notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with > no meaning or pattern: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg > > This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered > set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but > he sees only random noise. > > > >> Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. >>> >>> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. >>> >> ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would >> guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright >> brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP >> protection . . . >> > > That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others > managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now. > The world has not grown more irrational. > > > >> Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a >> pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, >> and perpetual motion devices. >> >>> > That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion > survey to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or > rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about > them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org. > We should ignore people who will not do their homework. > > We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is, > we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If we > could win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world > believes the results. He alone would be enough. > > I do
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin O'Malley wrote: How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the > finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be > hundreds or thousands. > I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It depends on many factors such as the signal-to-noise ratio, the complexity of the instruments, the extent to which the results call for new and difficult techniques, and so on. It was difficult to believe polywater claims because in every case the instruments were operating at the extreme limits of their capabilities. It is much easier to believe the claim that a mammal has been cloned because you can look at the baby and see it is a twin of the parent, and you can test the DNA. In the case of cold fusion, the experiment is very difficult to replicate, but the results are easy to understand. The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after them such as John Bockris. Also Miles, Mizuno, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Appleby, Will, Okamoto, Huggins and so on. The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world replicated within a year or so. They were all certain the results were real. Anyone who does not believe that kind of thing, from this kind of people, does not understand experimental science. Over in the Forbes comment section Gibbs referred to these people as "the LENR community." It would be more accurate to call them "every major academic electrochemist on earth." That puts it in a different perspective. The problem with skeptics is not that they don't believe these results. Or that they have found problems with the results. The problem is they have zero knowledge of this subject. They have never read any papers and they never heard of Yeager or Will or anyone else. They think there are no papers! They would not know a flow calorimeter if it bit them on the butt. People who are completely ignorant of a subject have no right to any opinion about it. A few skeptics such as Cude have looked at results, but they have strange notions about them. Cude thinks these graphs show only random results with no meaning or pattern: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg This is sort of the opposite of a Rorschach test. Cude looks at an ordered set of data that constitutes irrefutable proof of a control parameter, but he sees only random noise. > Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. >>> >> >> Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. >> > ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would > guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright > brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP > protection . . . > That is true, but that is human nature. The Wright brothers and others managed to succeed despite these problems, so perhaps we will succeed now. The world has not grown more irrational. > Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a > pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, > and perpetual motion devices. > >> That may be true, although you would have to conduct a public opinion survey to confirm it. However, such opinions are not based on knowledge or rationality so we cannot change them. There is no point to worrying about them. We should concentrate on people such as the readers at LENR-CANR.org. We should ignore people who will not do their homework. We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is, we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of money. And guts. If we could win over Bill Gates I would not care if anyone else in the world believes the results. He alone would be enough. I do not think there is any chance of convincing Gates, by the way. He would not listen to Arthur Clarke so I doubt he will listen to anyone else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; > ***Yup. A lot of people have the IMPRESsion that it challenges the 2nd law, but that isn't the case at all. In fact here, this accusation that BECs absorb energy and violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, is a misguided impression as well. > it challenges some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is > the same. That is what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate, > and difficult to persuade them it is real. > ***Difficult but not impossible. That is, unless one gets their paycheck from the 'hot fusion establishment'. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to convince someone who is paid not to be convinced. > > > If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics > enough times, those laws are wrong. > ***True of any scientific law. Most people don't realize that a scientific law is simply a mathematically rigorous observation. We have a law of gravity but no accepted theory of gravity. How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be hundreds or thousands. > > > >> Kevin: Most people still assume it's wrong. >> > > Jed: Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. > ***Unfortunately, that includes the great majority of people. I would guess that 95% of the population (who had an opinion) thought the Wright brothers were frauds until they finally had some money on the table & IP protection and demo'd their device to the army. Even then, Glenn Curtiss and others tried to steal their IP, with the willing complicity of the Smithsonian Institution. I would guess that at this point (Rossi being who he is) that 98% of the population think he's a fraud. Perhaps 90% of people who have an opinion on LENR think it's a pathological science, on the same level as flat earthers, unicorn admirers, and perpetual motion devices. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and >> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. >> > ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. > Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; it challenges some of the laws of plasma fusion. However, the effect is the same. That is what makes it difficult to persuade people to replicate, and difficult to persuade them it is real. > Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. >> > ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. > If you replicate an effect that challenges the laws of thermodynamics enough times, those laws are wrong. > Most people still assume it's wrong. > Those people are irrational. You should discount their views. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I found a great paper that might lay all this stuff out. I have not read it yet but it looks real good after doing a quick scan. http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~pelster/Theses/nietner.pdf Quantum Phase Transition of Light in the Jaynes-Cummings Lattice On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate follow the Jaynes-Cummings model. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model > > Jaynes–Cummings model > > > More to the point, when a Ni/H system get going after state up, the > systems becomes totally entangled. > > > This type of system is described by the Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard model > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model > > Drawing a connection between the Ni/H reactor and a Bose-Einstein > condensate as follows: > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208523 > > In spite of their different natures, light and matter can be unified under > the strong-coupling regime, yielding superpositions of the two, referred to > as dressed states or polaritons. After initially being demonstrated in bulk > semiconductors and atomic systems, strong-coupling phenomena have been > recently realized in solid-state optical microcavities. Strong coupling is > an essential ingredient in the physics spanning from many-body quantum > coherence phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity, > to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Within cavity quantum electrodynamics, > the Jaynes-Cummings model describes the interaction of a single fermionic > two-level system with a single bosonic photon mode. For a photon number > larger than one, known as quantum strong coupling, a significant > anharmonicity is predicted for the ladder-like spectrum of dressed states. > For optical transitions in semiconductor nanostructures, first signatures > of the quantum strong coupling were recently reported. Here we use advanced > coherent nonlinear spectroscopy to explore a strongly coupled > exciton-cavity system. We measure and simulate its four-wave mixing > response, granting direct access to the coherent dynamics of the first and > second rungs of the Jaynes-Cummings ladder. The agreement of the rich > experimental evidence with the predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings model is > proof of the quantum strong-coupling regime in the investigated solid-state > system. > > > > This says to me that the Ni/H system obeys the same rules as the BEC. > > I showed you that in such a Jaynes-Cummings system, the atoms share the > frequency of a quantum as defined by a coupling constant. > > This how the FREQUENT of a gamma ray quantum is shared(chopped up) between > all the ensemble members of the NI/H system. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the >> subject we are discussing here. Please explain. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf >> >> *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells* >> ** >> We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum, >> stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings >> systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal >> field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the >> case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy. >> * >> >> >> Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy >> >> You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of >> the quantum based on the coupling constant. >> >> >> See figures 3 and 4. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: >> >>> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The >>> laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and >>> how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not >>> address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that >>> cannot be identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of >>> thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, >>> regardless of how it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. >>> NO VIOLATION EXISTS. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t >>> seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a >>> de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation showing
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
The atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate follow the Jaynes-Cummings model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model Jaynes–Cummings model More to the point, when a Ni/H system get going after state up, the systems becomes totally entangled. This type of system is described by the Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model Drawing a connection between the Ni/H reactor and a Bose-Einstein condensate as follows: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20208523 In spite of their different natures, light and matter can be unified under the strong-coupling regime, yielding superpositions of the two, referred to as dressed states or polaritons. After initially being demonstrated in bulk semiconductors and atomic systems, strong-coupling phenomena have been recently realized in solid-state optical microcavities. Strong coupling is an essential ingredient in the physics spanning from many-body quantum coherence phenomena, such as Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity, to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Within cavity quantum electrodynamics, the Jaynes-Cummings model describes the interaction of a single fermionic two-level system with a single bosonic photon mode. For a photon number larger than one, known as quantum strong coupling, a significant anharmonicity is predicted for the ladder-like spectrum of dressed states. For optical transitions in semiconductor nanostructures, first signatures of the quantum strong coupling were recently reported. Here we use advanced coherent nonlinear spectroscopy to explore a strongly coupled exciton-cavity system. We measure and simulate its four-wave mixing response, granting direct access to the coherent dynamics of the first and second rungs of the Jaynes-Cummings ladder. The agreement of the rich experimental evidence with the predictions of the Jaynes-Cummings model is proof of the quantum strong-coupling regime in the investigated solid-state system. This says to me that the Ni/H system obeys the same rules as the BEC. I showed you that in such a Jaynes-Cummings system, the atoms share the frequency of a quantum as defined by a coupling constant. This how the FREQUENT of a gamma ray quantum is shared(chopped up) between all the ensemble members of the NI/H system. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the subject > we are discussing here. Please explain. > > Ed Storms > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf > > *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells* > ** > We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum, > stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings > systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal > field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the > case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy. > * > > > Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy > > You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the > quantum based on the coupling constant. > > > See figures 3 and 4. > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws >> of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how >> the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address >> the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be >> identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. >> Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how >> it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. NO VIOLATION >> EXISTS. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t >> seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a >> de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is >>> more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. >>> >>> This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd >>> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation >>> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t >>> believe their lying eyes. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > O'Malley wrote: > >> >> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental >> result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not >> good"? >> >> This is an experimental fin
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Axil, I have no idea what your comment means in the context of the subject we are discussing here. Please explain. Ed Storms On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Axil Axil wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum, stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes- Cummings systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal field modes, and we solve and characterize the combined system for the case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy. Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the quantum based on the coupling constant. See figures 3 and 4. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. NO VIOLATION EXISTS. Ed Storms On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t believe their lying eyes. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: O'Malley wrote: ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which appear to be wrong on the face of it. ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4827v1.pdf *Two coupled Jaynes-Cummings cells* ** We develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the energy spectrum, stationary states, and dielectric susceptibility of two Jaynes-Cummings systems coupled together by the overlap of their respective longitudinal field modes, and *we solve and characterize the combined system for the case that the two atoms and two cavities share a single quantum of energy.* Here is how two entangled particles share a single quantum of energy You will notice that the each particle gets a part of the FREQUENCY of the quantum based on the coupling constant. See figures 3 and 4. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws > of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how > the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address > the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be > identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. > Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how > it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. NO VIOLATION > EXISTS. > > Ed Storms > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing > a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto > violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more >> elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. >> >> This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd >> law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation >> showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t >> believe their lying eyes. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> O'Malley wrote: > > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental > result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? > > This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. >>> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. >>> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume >>> it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment >>> could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which appear to be wrong on the face of it. >>> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows >>> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas >>> in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it >>> was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. >>> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas >>> do. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >> > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Axil, you show that you have no understanding of the second law. The laws of thermodynamics simply define how energy must flow in a system and how the system must behave as a result of the energy. The laws do not address the source. In the case of Rossi, he has an obvious source that cannot be identified. This source has no relationship to the laws of thermodynamic. Nevertheless, the energy that results from this source, regardless of how it is created, MUST follow the laws of thermodynamics. NO VIOLATION EXISTS. Ed Storms On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t believe their lying eyes. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: O'Malley wrote: ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which appear to be wrong on the face of it. ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
>From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more > elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. > > > This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd > law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation > showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t > believe their lying eyes. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >>> O'Malley wrote: >>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>> >>> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and >>> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. >>> >> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. >>> >> ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume >> it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment >> could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. >> >> >> >> >>> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which >>> appear to be wrong on the face of it. >>> >> ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows >> BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas >> in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it >> was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. >> BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas >> do. >> >> >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I was going to write this post, but you beat me to it. Your post is more elegant and persuasive than mine would have been. This common flaw in the reason and logic that most people use, this 2nd law of thermodynamics hangup, is going to make the experimental revelation showing BEC activity in LENR too hard for people to take. They just won’t believe their lying eyes. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> O'Malley wrote: >> >>> >>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental >>> result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >>> >>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>> >> >> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and >> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. >> > ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. > > > > > >> Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. >> > ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume it's > wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be > widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. > > > > >> The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which >> appear to be wrong on the face of it. >> > ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows > BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas > in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it > was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. > BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas > do. > > >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > O'Malley wrote: > >> >> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >> >> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >> > > It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and > therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. > ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR. > Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. > ***Let me see -- LENR, 14,700 replications. Most people still assume it's wrong. There is the distinct possibility that this BEC experiment could be widely replicated and most people will assume it is wrong. > The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which > appear to be wrong on the face of it. > ***What we have here is an experimental piece of the puzzle that shows BECs absorb energy and could account for the 2nd miracle of missing gammas in LENR. Y E Kim's theory has been given yet another leg up. First, it was high temperature BECs forming. Second, it is that BECs absorb energy. BECs do not "disobey" the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than plasmas do. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
But upthread you have already called this actual experimental result "not good". On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not > good'. > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that >> stance would be something you'd call "not good". >> > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
O'Malley wrote: > > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, > everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? > > This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and therefore this experimental result is probably wrong. Until it is widely replicated most people will assume it is wrong. The problem there is that people seldom try to replicate results which appear to be wrong on the face of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not good'. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that > stance would be something you'd call "not good". > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I suggest you all read "Quantum Weirdness? It's all in your mind" In Scientific American, June 2013, page 47. According to the author, QM has been made complex and increasingly out of contact with reality. The success in fitting behavior has been used to justify increasingly complex mathematical methods without any additional benefit. I believe the demand that CF be explained using such treatment is another example of the intellectual system run a muck. There is NO Quantum mechanical paradox. This is only in the imagination, not in reality. Ed Storms On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Dear Daniel The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when we try to understanding the quantum world around us. This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It is just too weird. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I think I understand now. In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that stance would be something you'd call "not good". On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any > statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in > the literature. > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty >> straightforward. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his >>> nVo? >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an experimental result. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I don't understand what you mean... > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha >> wrote: >> >>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>> >> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental >> result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not >> good"? >> >> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha >>> > wrote: > That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. > > > > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in the literature. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty > straightforward. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo? >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It >>> violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like >>> watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of >>> gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an >>> experimental result. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >> > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental > result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? > > This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > > > >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha >>> wrote: >>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment >>> trumps theory. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty straightforward. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo? > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It >> violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like >> watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of >> gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an >> experimental result. >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> I don't understand what you mean... >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha >> wrote: >> >>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>> >> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment >> trumps theory. >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo? 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It > violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like > watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of > gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an > experimental result. > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean... >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >>> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >>> >>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >> > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment > trumps theory. > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an experimental result. On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I don't understand what you mean... > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>> >> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >> >> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. > > > > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
There is no violations here. Experimentation defines the principles that the theories as based on. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own > principles. > > > 2013/6/3 Axil Axil > >> Dear Daniel >> >> The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when >> we try to understanding the quantum world around us. >> >> This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. >> It is just too weird. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> I don't understand what you mean... >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha >> wrote: >> >>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>> >> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment >> trumps theory. >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own principles. 2013/6/3 Axil Axil > Dear Daniel > > The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when > we try to understanding the quantum world around us. > > This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. > It is just too weird. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean... >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >>> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >>> >>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >> > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment > trumps theory. > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Dear Daniel The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when we try to understanding the quantum world around us. This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It is just too weird. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I don't understand what you mean... > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>> >> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >> >> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. > > > > > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I don't understand what you mean... 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >> > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, > everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? > > This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > > > >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps >>> theory. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. > ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? This is an experimental finding, not a theory. > > > 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>> >> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps >> theory. >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >> > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps > theory. > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. > ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps theory. > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley > This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will > cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N > numbers of atoms. > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. >> >> >> 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley >> >>> If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we >>> will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this >>> fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and >>> Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state >>> as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists >>> insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the >>> same as for BECs. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together. If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I can’t wait to find out. Reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N numbers of atoms. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. > > > 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley > >> If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we >> will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this >> fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and >> Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state >> as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists >> insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the >> same as for BECs. >> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* >>> >>> >>> >>> Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will >>> undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula >>> >>> >>> >>> Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized >>> frequency) >>> >>> >>> >>> The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. >>> >>> >>> >>> To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive >>> mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive >>> particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this >>> super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. >>> This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force >>> of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive >>> EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local >>> nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear >>> forces that hold the nucleus together. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? >>> I can’t wait to find out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Reference: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas. 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley > If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will > have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this > fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and > Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state > as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists > insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the > same as for BECs. > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> >> > >> >> *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* >> >> >> >> Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will >> undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula >> >> >> >> Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) >> >> >> >> The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. >> >> >> >> To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored >> ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle >> effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive >> particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short >> distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. >> That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge >> amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that >> the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the >> nucleus together. >> >> >> >> If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I >> can’t wait to find out. >> >> >> >> Reference: >> >> >> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf >> >> >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the same as for BECs. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > > *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* > > > > Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will > undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula > > > > Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) > > > > The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. > > > > To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored > ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle > effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive > particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short > distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF. > That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge > amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that > the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the > nucleus together. > > > > If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I > can’t wait to find out. > > > > Reference: > > > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Axil, I agree, this is my take on LENR at higher GeV range in our Brane World... http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/dbrane-316079-image06.jpg Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: > "LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything." > > The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear > reactions at low energy levels. > > > > But are the energies generated in LENR low, or are they potentially > gigantic beyond the reach of any possible supercollider. > > > > Grand unification energy is something less than around 10^^16 GeV, Could > LENR produce such high energies. > > > > Well at least the unification of the electroweak forces and the strong > force might someday be possible. > > > > This force unification might be a possibility in view of some kinds of > violent nuclear rearrangement seen in some LENR systems experiments. > > > > To start off with, what causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart > and reassemble their subatomic parts in new ways? > > > > Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend > insight into the LENR question. > > > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf > > > > *The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light* > > > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf > > > > *A sum rule for charged elementary particles* > > > > These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by > electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant > creation and destruction of virtual dipoles. > > > > The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the > virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences. > > > > These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and > controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism. > > > > It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant (FSC) is not > really constant at all and can vary. > > > If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% either more or less, the > delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force > will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus. > > > > A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces > enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling. > > > > If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production > begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme > dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space. > > > > The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric > of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the > point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The > greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the > strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume bereft of the > strong force will fall apart. The control of this strong force negation > process is possible. Through the control of the dipole production topology, > the amount of nuclear disruption is proportional to the strength of the > dipole field, and this could be adjusted from slight to extreme. > > > > The next consideration to consider is how the dipole force can grow to > such high levels that the resultant EMF can disrupt the internal mechanisms > inside the nucleus. > > > > Each individual dipole is a member of a global mirrored Bose-Einstein > condensate of polaritons and holes in which all the combined dipole EMF is > available to each member of the global dipole ensemble in linear > superposition as a quantum mechanical potential. This EMF is carried by > virtual photons that can be in quantum mechanical linear superposition. > > > > When any given nucleus succumbs to the combined power of the global > entangled dipole force, the superposition of the EMF photons is resolved > and energy of the nuclear breakup is transferred coherently in micro > quantities to the other members of the dipole ensemble. > > > > The BEC is immediately reestablished over the disrupted nucleus within the > local volume of dipole EMF influence and the superpositions of potential > nuclear disintegrations are restored globally throughout the system. > > > > Reference: > > > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1 > > > > *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate* > > > > Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will > undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula > > > > Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency) > > > > The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms. > > > > To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored > ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle > effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive > particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short >
