subject:"\[Vo\]\:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything."

Ed:
I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read
a LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction),
you will find the data set on which this paper was based.

Ed Storms

On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

Page 71
The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Dennis Cravens
1
and Dennis Letts
2
1
Amridge University Box 1317
Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA
2
12015 Ladrido Lane
Austin, TX 78727 USA
Abstract
One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation
of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally
posted to a
CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of
the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and
Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is
correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a
real physical
effect beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE)
been replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect
has been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
* Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
* Frontiers of Physics in China

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been successfully
replicated. Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since the original
claim, hundreds of successful replications have been published. He then
goes on to look at 386 of them.

http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE)
been replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect
has been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Here there are 291 replications mentioned.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

The first ~100 replications came in from a veritable Who's Who of
electrochemistry. Just about every top electrochemist in the world

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Storms cites 1060 positive result studies in his book The Science of Low
Energy Nuclear Reaction
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEthescience.pdf

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been
successfully replicated. Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since
the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been
published. He then goes on to look at 386 of them.

http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

Page 71
The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Dennis Cravens
1
and Dennis Letts
2
1
Amridge University Box 1317
Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA
2
12015 Ladrido Lane
Austin, TX 78727 USA
Abstract
One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the
generation of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally
posted to a
CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that
were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of
the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical
and
Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is
correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a
real physical
effect beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE)
been replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate
the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect
has been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Here there are 291 replications mentioned.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-12 Thread Jed Rothwell

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been successfully
 replicated.   Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since the original
 claim, hundreds of successful replications have been published.  He then
 goes on to look at 386 of them.


 http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf



Let me point out that this is 386 reports, or laboratories reporting. There
are many more individual experimental runs than this.

This paper references Storms' book, and the tables in it. It has a list,
Reported successful FPE experiments which begins:

Excess Heat, Table 2, pages 53-61, Number of Successes 184
Tritium Production Table 6, pages 79-81, Number of Successes 61
. . .

In the book, the first thing listed in Table 2 is:

Dardik et al. DW Iso. open electrolytic Pd, LiOD+, D2O, 1.8

Dardik has done hundreds of positive experiments by now. So have some of
the other groups in the list of 184 positive excess heat experiments.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-12 Thread Edmund Storms

Thanks Kevin. My next book will be more interesting than usual because it
evaluates theory. More than a few cages will be rattled.

As for the skeptopaths, they are not worth the time. These people are clearly
not rational. Some human minds are not designed to accept reality most of us
enjoy. These people have their own reality that will not change regardless of
the evidence. Their attitude toward cold fusion is only an example. I suspect
you will find the rest of their reality to be equally distorted.

Ed Storms
On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Ed:
I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read a
LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you
will find the data set on which this paper was based.

Ed Storms

On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

Page 71
The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Dennis Cravens
1
and Dennis Letts
2
1
Amridge University Box 1317
Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA
2
12015 Ladrido Lane
Austin, TX 78727 USA
Abstract
One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted
to a
CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and
Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is
correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real
physical
effect “beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been
replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has
been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdfsid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

An independent thesis research at the University of Texas at Austin found
that from 1989 to 2010 more than 180 experiments around the world reported
anomalous high production of excess heat in Pd-D or Ni-H.
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

--
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Then it is easy to see how someone like JT He who reviewed the evidence
could come up with 14000 replications.

Let's say that, using Ed's figure of 1060 reports, that an average of 14
cells were successful for each experiment.  That would get you the 14000
figure very quickly.  And I've seen   indications that some of these guys
were getting more than a hundred cells to work.


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been
 successfully replicated.   Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since
 the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been
 published.  He then goes on to look at 386 of them.


 http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf



 Let me point out that this is 386 reports, or laboratories reporting.
 There are many more individual experimental runs than this.

 This paper references Storms' book, and the tables in it. It has a list,
 Reported successful FPE experiments which begins:

 Excess Heat, Table 2, pages 53-61, Number of Successes 184
 Tritium Production Table 6, pages 79-81, Number of Successes 61
 . . .

 In the book, the first thing listed in Table 2 is:

 Dardik et al. DW Iso. open electrolytic Pd, LiOD+, D2O, 1.8

 Dardik has done hundreds of positive experiments by now. So have some of
 the other groups in the list of 184 positive excess heat experiments.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-12 Thread James Bowery

Of these cells, how many of them were in a mode where the heat production
was unequivocal in the sense that a casual observer would be hard pressed
to deny what was going on?

Good examples of this in history are the:

1) original hole in the lab table event that triggered FP to pursue the
phenomenon in earnest

2) the original heat after death event that boiled away the D2O without
any energy input?


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Then it is easy to see how someone like JT He who reviewed the evidence
 could come up with 14000 replications.

 Let's say that, using Ed's figure of 1060 reports, that an average of 14
 cells were successful for each experiment.  That would get you the 14000
 figure very quickly.  And I've seen   indications that some of these guys
 were getting more than a hundred cells to work.


 On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I see it all over the place that hundreds of times it's been
 successfully replicated.   Here, Storms says: During the 20 years since
 the original claim, hundreds of successful replications have been
 published.  He then goes on to look at 386 of them.


 http://fusiontorch.com/uploads/StormsJudgingValidityOfFleischmannPonsEffect2009.pdf



 Let me point out that this is 386 reports, or laboratories reporting.
 There are many more individual experimental runs than this.

 This paper references Storms' book, and the tables in it. It has a list,
 Reported successful FPE experiments which begins:

 Excess Heat, Table 2, pages 53-61, Number of Successes 184
 Tritium Production Table 6, pages 79-81, Number of Successes 61
 . . .

 In the book, the first thing listed in Table 2 is:

 Dardik et al. DW Iso. open electrolytic Pd, LiOD+, D2O, 1.8

 Dardik has done hundreds of positive experiments by now. So have some of
 the other groups in the list of 184 positive excess heat experiments.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-12 Thread Axil Axil

Ed has stated frankly that DGT is not to be included in the experimental or
theoretical undertakings of the serious LENR scientist.

Ed's books have included to this current juncture mention of Dr, Kim's BEC
based theories. Will Ed's negative felling for DGT rub off onto his current
collaborative work that Dr. Kim has done since he has some access to DGT
experimental equipment.

I expect that the MIT conference coming up in just a few days will give
both Ed and us a theoretical snapshot and the current perspective on LENR
theory by those scientists intimate with first hand LENR research going
forward.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Thanks Kevin. My next book will be more interesting than usual because it
evaluates theory. More than a few cages will be rattled.

As for the skeptopaths, they are not worth the time. These people are
clearly not rational. Some human minds are not designed to accept reality
most of us enjoy. These people have their own reality that will not change
regardless of the evidence. Their attitude toward cold fusion is only an
example. I suspect you will find the rest of their reality to be equally
distorted.

Ed Storms

On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Ed:
I love your books. I'm dealing with PTSIFOM skeptopaths who wouldn't read
a LENR book unless they knew $10 bills would fall out of each page.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction),
you will find the data set on which this paper was based.

Ed Storms

On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

Page 71
The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Dennis Cravens
1
and Dennis Letts
2
1
Amridge University Box 1317
Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA
2
12015 Ladrido Lane
Austin, TX 78727 USA
Abstract
One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the
generation of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally
posted to a
CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that
were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of
the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical
and
Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is
correlated with the criteria and that production of excess heat is a
real physical
effect beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE)
been replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate
the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect
has been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

How many replications does it take for a

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Bob Cook

Harry

So be it.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

  Bob,
  Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
  This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the 
blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you 
want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you 
how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

  Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
  Harry

  On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
of everything.

  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Bob stated:

. we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.

Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)

-Mark

  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some 
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

  Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Bob Cook

Harry--Wikipedia regarding The Matrix says the following:

The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols 
representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of 
reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).  The 
terms, popularized in science fiction culture, derive from the 1999 film The 
Matrix. In the movie, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a 
red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill would allow him to remain in the 
fabricated reality of the Matrix, therefore living the illusion of 
ignorance, while the red pill would lead to his escape from the Matrix and 
into the real world, therefore living the truth of reality.

I think you've got your pills mixed up.  The red ones get you to reality, 
although wonderland would not be to bad--it might be a little like this blog, 
which is a lot of fun.

Bob 



Contents
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


  Bob,
  Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
  This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the 
blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you 
want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you 
how deep the rabbit-hole goes.



  Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
  Harry



  On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
of everything.







  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Bob stated:

. we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.



Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)



-Mark








  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some 
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)


  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI



  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg



  Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Alain Sepeda

Some study that approach.
the problem is laws are designed so crowdfunding is treated like charity,
or at best as securities.
LENR is not a charity, it is a revolution, the next industrial revolution.
It deserve crowd-equities

this is what plain honest capitalism should be, and what it is not today.


2014-03-10 0:47 GMT+01:00 Lawrence de Bivort ldebiv...@gmail.com:

 Jed, this may seem unconventional, but has a crowd-sourcing approach been
 considered?

 I know of at least one scientific program -- small, admittedly -- that is
 being crowd-funded. A LENR proposal would appeal more broadly, I think, and
 might be able to raise adequate research funding.

 A key might be to structure the proposal with phases, so that funding and
 program phases were coordinated, thus building investor confidence.

 Cheers,
 Lawry



 On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding.  Zero
 dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
 valid no matter what they do but I disagree.


 MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more
 from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid.
 They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
 before and after. Without that they are flying blind.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread H Veeder

Bob,

The red pill brings you closer to the truth by taking you deeper into the
rabbit hole.
The journey into Wonderland isn't mere escapism.

Like Mark said, you should watch the movie.

Harry


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Harry--Wikipedia regarding The Matrix says the following:

 The *red pill* and its opposite, the *blue pill*, are pop culture
 symbols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol representing the choice
 between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the
 blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill).  The terms, popularized in
 science fiction culture, derive from the 1999 film *The Matrix
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix*. In the movie, the main
 character Neo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_%28The_Matrix%29 is
 offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The blue pill would
 allow him to remain in the fabricated reality of the Matrix, therefore
 living the illusion of ignorance, while the red pill would lead to his
 escape from the Matrix and into the real world, therefore living the truth
 of reality.

 I think you've got your pills mixed up.  The red ones get you to reality,
 although wonderland would not be to bad--it might be a little like this
 blog, which is a lot of fun.

 Bob

  Contents

 - Original Message -
 *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.

 Bob,
 Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
 This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take
 the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe
 whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in
 Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

 Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
 Harry


 On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Harry--

 I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.
 However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the
 red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from
 my pill box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the
 theory of everything.




 On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

  Bob stated:

 ... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.



 Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!

 The Blue pill or the Red pill?

 ;-)



 -Mark




 One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some
 references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

 Neo's apartment:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

  The red/blue pill scene:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

 Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Terry Blanton

Actually, neither pill exists.  Both are part of the construct.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Jed Rothwell

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

 This file is corrupted.  At least for me...


Try downloading it again, please. Press reload the page. Your browser may
be looking at the old copy.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Bob Cook

Mark--

I will.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM
  Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

  Bob, you need to watch The Matrix!

  -mark

  From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

  Harry

  So be it.

  Bob

- Original Message - 

From: H Veeder 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM

Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take 
the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever 
you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show 
you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
Harry

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob

  - Original Message - 

  From: H Veeder 

  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM

  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
of everything.

  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

  Bob stated:

  . we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.

  Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

  The Blue pill or the Red pill?

  ;-)

  -Mark

  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some 
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

  Neo's apartment:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

  The red/blue pill scene:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

  Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread MarkI-Zeropoint



Please do and tell fellow Vorts what you thought of it...
-m

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

 Mark--

I will.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13PM 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly[Vo]:LENR a gateway into the 
theory of everything. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')


 javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob,you need to watch The Matrix! 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
-mark 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
From: Bob Cook[mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory 
ofeverything. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Harry 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
So beit. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob  javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
- Original  Message - 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
From: H Veeder 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March  09, 2014 10:53 PM 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re:  Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the 
theory of  everything. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix  (1999):
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. 
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and 
believe  whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you 
stay in Wonderland  and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Since you like red pills that means you are in  wonderland. ;-)
Harry 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook  frobertc...@hotmail.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com') 
wrote: 

javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
Harry-- 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')


javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
I do not  know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my 
age.  However,  given the choice between blue and red pills , I 
always choose the red ones,  since they are easier to see when I 
drop them on the floor  from my  pill box.  I typically don't eat 
blue  things. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')


javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
Bob 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
- OriginalMessage - 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('frobertc...@hotmail.com')
From: H Veeder 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('hveeder...@gmail.com')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com') 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Sent: Sunday, March09, 2014 10:04 PM 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re:Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the 
theory ofeverything. 
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

   javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been
replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect
has been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

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

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Lennart Thornros

I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes
more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have
some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat
of another viewpoint because of that.
It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a
beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes
her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and
just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have
limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered
that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics
will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR
community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos).
Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's
crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there.  I
think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will
find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I
understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the
past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is
to make any new investor confused. It is like telling the girl that her
previous lover was a lousy lover and that the one who approached her
yesterday was even worse. True or untrue, how do you know? How did you get
that knowledge? The other ones have said the same about you so maybe she
ought to visit another neighborhood? Maybe this is a bad area?
I hope Ed Storms book will help sort out where we are. I personally have no
investment capacity but I know investors need help to see, which
possibilities are there and a pathway to reach success. Any hope to raise
money will require :
1. A clear definition of the goal. (Nothing fluffy like a new era or
revolutionary - precise expectations with a realistic time table.)
2. A list of possible obstacles.
3. Possible solutions to overcome the obstacles.
4. A team able to handle the obstacles.
5. An organization able to control the team and communicate with the
investor.
My experience is that most people will agree to three of the well known
conditions and then say that the other two are not important. What was your
first thought ? Honestly
Two more things: First, it certainly will not be an advantage to criticize
the competition rather the opposite. Second, no VC will come looking for
the opportunity.
Finally I know I am sticking out my head in a field where I have no
capacity to debate the technology or its particular problems. They are
unique at the same time as they are s common. I understand that there
is a big difference if one wants to get the Noble price or successfully
replace the grid, I.E.. My suggestions will probably be of little help to
get the Nobel price.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650

Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Mark--

 I will.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM
 *Subject:* RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.

  Bob, you need to watch The Matrix!

 -mark



 *From:* Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.



 Harry



 So be it.



 Bob

  - Original Message -

 *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM

 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.



 Bob,
 Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
 This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take
 the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe
 whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in
 Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.



 Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
 Harry



 On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Harry--



 I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.
 However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the
 red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from
 my pill box.  I typically don't eat blue things.



 Bob

  - Original Message -

 *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com

 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09,

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Edmund Storms

Kevin, if you read my book (The science of low energy nuclear reaction), you
will find the data set on which this paper was based.

Ed Storms

On Mar 10, 2014, at 1:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Cravens Letts reviewed 167 papers and came up with 4 criteria that
correlate excess heat.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJproceeding.pdf

Page 71
The Enabling Criteria of Electrochemical Heat: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Dennis Cravens
1
and Dennis Letts
2
1
Amridge University Box 1317
Cloudcroft, NM 88317 USA
2
12015 Ladrido Lane
Austin, TX 78727 USA
Abstract
One hundred sixty seven papers from 1989 to 2007 concerning the generation of
heat from electrochemical cells were collected, listed, and digitally posted
to a
CD for reference, review and study. A review showed four criteria that were
correlated to reports of successful experiments attempting replication of the
Fleischmann-Pons effect. All published negative results can be traced to
researchers not fulfilling one or more of these conditions. Statistical and
Bayesian studies show that observation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is
correlated with the criteria and that production of “excess heat” is a real
physical
effect “beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been
replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has
been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of Texas
Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

--
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Edmund Storms

This is good advice, Lennart. But let me carry your analogy further. In this 
case, the beautiful girl has the reputation for being a slut. So, not only must 
she sell her beauty but also has to show she can be trusted. How is this done 
when the people who spread the false rumor are still at work?  In addition, 
most possible suitors have no ability to check the facts or even to understand 
how the rumor got started. The only way she gets chosen is for someone to take 
a chance, to ask the right questions, and to listen carefully to the answers 
because no one can be trusted to tell the truth.  What will likely happen is 
that she will inherit a fortune from China and her reputation will no longer 
matter.

Ed Storms
On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

 I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes more 
 physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have some 
 experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat of 
 another viewpoint because of that.
 It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a 
 beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes 
 her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and 
 just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have 
 limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered 
 that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics 
 will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR 
 community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos).
 Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's 
 crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there.  I think 
 it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will find 
 more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I understand 
 that some players in the market behaved less than good in the past. To 
 concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is to make any 
 new investor confused. It is like telling the girl that her previous lover 
 was a lousy lover and that the one who approached her yesterday was even 
 worse. True or untrue, how do you know? How did you get that knowledge? The 
 other ones have said the same about you so maybe she ought to visit another 
 neighborhood? Maybe this is a bad area?
 I hope Ed Storms book will help sort out where we are. I personally have no 
 investment capacity but I know investors need help to see, which 
 possibilities are there and a pathway to reach success. Any hope to raise 
 money will require :
 1. A clear definition of the goal. (Nothing fluffy like a new era or 
 revolutionary - precise expectations with a realistic time table.)
 2. A list of possible obstacles. 
 3. Possible solutions to overcome the obstacles.
 4. A team able to handle the obstacles.
 5. An organization able to control the team and communicate with the investor.
 My experience is that most people will agree to three of the well known 
 conditions and then say that the other two are not important. What was your 
 first thought ? Honestly
 Two more things: First, it certainly will not be an advantage to criticize 
 the competition rather the opposite. Second, no VC will come looking for the 
 opportunity.
 Finally I know I am sticking out my head in a field where I have no capacity 
 to debate the technology or its particular problems. They are unique at the 
 same time as they are s common. I understand that there is a big 
 difference if one wants to get the Noble price or successfully replace the 
 grid, I.E.. My suggestions will probably be of little help to get the Nobel 
 price. 
   
 
 Best Regards ,
 Lennart Thornros
 
 www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 
 lenn...@thornros.com
 +1 916 436 1899
 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650
 
 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment 
 to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
 
 
 On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Mark--
  
 I will.
  
 Bob
 - Original Message -
 From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:13 PM
 Subject: RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
 everything.
 
 Bob, you need to watch The Matrix!
 
 -mark
 
  
 
 From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:09 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
 everything.
 
  
 
 Harry
 
  
 
 So be it.
 
  
 
 Bob
 
 - Original Message -
 
 From: H Veeder
 
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 
 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:53 PM
 
 Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
 everything.
 
  
 
 Bob,
 Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-10 Thread Lennart Thornros

Ed,
Maybe you turned my analogy a little but I am prepared to go along with
that. Yes, I can see it is uphill.
However, that makes it absolutely necessary to adhere to all five steps.
First you have to reapply the lipstick. Remove the vulgar and tell it all
to a more subtle lipstick.
Then you need to ignore the critic and avoid to make comparisons. This is
because you can be sure that all the other girls will point out that until
recently she has been a slut and maybe she has not changed.
Once she becomes accept and free from STD she will be rather attractive and
YES inheritance will be good and who cares from where? However, as you said
with inheritance she can chose to chase the Noble price and not worry about
money. (My ideas is then obsolete.)
I agree that it would be good if the F/P announcement had been better
supported at the presentation. Here is where my fear kicks in so just take
it for what it is. I have the understanding of that there are numerous
rectifications and proofs to dhow that this critic is the snow that fell
last year. In addition a number of possible theories have been created and
even if they are different they do have some common ground. To concentrate
on the common ground to accept the need to eliminate one issue at the time
following a clear plan with a clearly stated goal will attract new lovers
with curiosity for the adventures that lay ahead. No, I do not think these
investors are to be found among government bond investors.
I can hear that there is an adversity against that this technology cannot
be firstly a US technology. I do not think that is realistic. It will have
international implications and it will distribute its benefits without
concern about nationality. There is advantages in every country. The
problem is that they often do not come in to play. Here we have the
advantage of good communication, available capital, innovative
organizations and a long standing tradition of leading technology
development. We can win much in the US of the future of LENR as it stand
today. We neither want or can have a monopoly. We just have to stop to
believe that government or/and politicians can be of any help. It is the
other way around - just see how they always have believed in LENR the day
it produces a success story.
I know my concept is right. I believe that this group has the knowledge. My
ambition was to encourage to form the organization and the attitude to
reach the deserved result more than find out who is wrong in a detail here
or there.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650

Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 This is good advice, Lennart. But let me carry your analogy further. In
 this case, the beautiful girl has the reputation for being a slut. So, not
 only must she sell her beauty but also has to show she can be trusted. How
 is this done when the people who spread the false rumor are still at work?
  In addition, most possible suitors have no ability to check the facts or
 even to understand how the rumor got started. The only way she gets chosen
 is for someone to take a chance, to ask the right questions, and to listen
 carefully to the answers because no one can be trusted to tell the truth.
  What will likely happen is that she will inherit a fortune from China and
 her reputation will no longer matter.

 Ed Storms

 On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

 I should probably avoid comment in this tread as the discussion includes
 more physics science than I even come close to understand. However, I have
 some experience from funding new businesses. I think I can provide somewhat
 of another viewpoint because of that.
 It goes for everything in life it has to be sold. If you want to kiss a
 beautiful girl you have to sell your ability. Best if your good looks makes
 her come investigating 'the goods' so you can get to show your ability and
 just close the deal. This is true about any product or service. I have
 limited experience of university grants but I think you guys have covered
 that part rather well. My conclusion is that you are saying that politics
 will be in the way regardless of the good reasons put forward and the LENR
 community has no bait of political nature. (Big organization = bad dittos).
 Now to the controversial part. Why is it so hard to get capital from VC's
 crowd funding etc. etc.? First of all the good looks are not there.  I
 think it is because anyone with the resources looking in to this arena will
 find more question marks and rivalry than a clear pathway to success. I
 understand that some players in the market behaved less than good in the
 past. To concentrate on their downside when they have received funding is
 to make any

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

 This file is corrupted.  At least for me...


That's not good. Try again. I will upload a new copy.

This question is nebulous, even somewhat meaningless, because it is hard to
count experiments. When Bockris ran a 10 x 10 array of cathodes, was that 1
test or 100?

Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or
100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
That's all there is to it.

- Jed

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From Jed:

 

...

 

 Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
ran

 a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat

 repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,

 or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

 

 The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other

 experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.

 That's all there is to it.

 

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
generate excess heat 100% of the time?

 

I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat
consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.

 

I'm also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major
impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past
quarter of a century.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes from 
the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence the LENR 
process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were important. 
 I can now identify the important variables, but money is required to use 
equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano level. 

LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. Unfortunately, 
the people who attempt to explain the effect have not identified the correct 
variables. As a result, people have been wondering aimlessly in the wilderness 
in search of the gold. A few people have found nuggets by chance, but the main 
ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close as anyone to finding the main ore 
body, but he is not telling where his gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to 
follow his trail.

Ed Storms


On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 From Jed:
  
 ...
  
  Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
  a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
  repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,
  or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.
 
  The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
  experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
  That's all there is to it.
  
 I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
 hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
 successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
 building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
 generate excess heat 100% of the time?
  
 I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat 
 consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.
  
 I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major 
 impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past 
 quarter of a century.
  
 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
 hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
 successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
 building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
 generate excess heat 100% of the time?

Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens,
and Pons. That's what I said here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes
months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if
someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92
cathodes, some will work.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead
of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a 
working cathode but this does not make it 100%.  McKubre also had good success, 
but only as long as he used Pd from a particular source. Other people have had 
the same experience. The source and the treatment are both important but a 
person only has control over the treatment. 

Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a high 
probability for success but this Pd is not generally available. The Pd-B made 
by NRL is said to have high probability, but this material is also not 
generally available. Why the source is important is a matter of debate, with 
the argument being determined by theory. If we had a laboratory able to combine 
these ideas and apply them using modern equipment, we might find the solution. 

Ed Storms

Ed
On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
 
 I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
 hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
 successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
 building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
 generate excess heat 100% of the time?
 
 Ed says no, but as a practical matter I think he did, and so did Cravens, and 
 Pons. That's what I said here:
 
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
 
 I mean it works even though there is no theory, and even though it takes 
 months to find one good cathode. It isn't useful, but it works. I'll bet if 
 someone spends a year doing the procedures in this paper with another 92 
 cathodes, some will work.
 
 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf
 
 Needless to say, if the people from ELFORSK are right, Rossi is miles ahead 
 of this. Even though he has no theory as far as I know.
 
 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a
 working cathode but this does not make it 100%.


In other words, it is the pre-modern trial-and-error method of developing
technology. It is akin to how ancient people figured out how to make
Damascus steel, or stone cathedrals that do not fall down. Their methods
were not foolproof; some cathedrals did fall down.

This method takes far more time and effort than a modern scientific
approach. However, it does work. I think we can say that using your
methods, reproducibility is asymptotically approaching 100%. The real value
of this would be if someone were to use these methods to manufacture 50
working cells which were then used by researchers to find a theory. That
would put the research on a more scientific basis.



 Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a
 high probability for success but this Pd is not generally available.


If there were funding and Violante were cooperative, these cathodes could
be made widely available. That is another way forward.



 If we had a laboratory able to combine these ideas and apply them using
 modern equipment, we might find the solution.


That is what I have in mind. Not that actual working technology should be
developed using pre-modern trial-and-error techniques, but that these
techniques  materials might serve as a stepping stone to 21st century
style development.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  if someone were to use these methods to manufacture 50 working cells
 which were then used by researchers to find a theory. That would put the
 research on a more scientific basis.


There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are they?

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
 they?


Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
Melich put it, what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep.

FP sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)

The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
destructive testing in the end.

Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.

There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
examine them to figure out why.

The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
itself.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
 they?


 Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
 Melich put it, what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep.

 FP sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
 happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)

 The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
 characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
 destructive testing in the end.

 Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.

 There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
 think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
 about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
 examine them to figure out why.

 The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
 itself.

 - Jed


The point being that even if someone did come up with 50 working cells it
wouldn't be adequate to find a theory.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 The point being that even if someone did come up with 50 working cells
 it wouldn't be adequate to find a theory.


It would be necessary but perhaps not sufficient. I do not see how people
will come up with a theory without data, and without experiments. Testing
cells that do not produce heat is not much help.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

I wrote:


 Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.


It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
able to rule out various hypotheses.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.


 It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
 able to rule out various hypotheses.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Let me expand on my comment:

The economics of cold fusion research are constrained by the cost of
testing cathodes.  We know that the original experiments did not use
sophisticated techniques to produce the cathodes and the cathodes used a
very tiny amount of Pd.  The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in
getting the electrochemistry and the diagnostics right.  The diagnostics
can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect marginal signals --
but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is not
the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.  We should,
instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the electrochemistry right
so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.

What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
 with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.


 On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wrote:


  Testing cells that do not produce heat is not much help.


 It can be a little helpful. It is the process of elimination. You may be
 able to rule out various hypotheses.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

Clearly what's needed is a process by which working cells can be created
 with some degree of reliability, even if only 0.01%.


Reliability is far better than 0.01%! It have never been that low, for any
major researcher I know.

They are doing a lot better than that at SKINR. Unfortunately, the
reactions are usually small, and only small fraction of input power.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Alain Sepeda

this presentation  at ICCF18 have  a part on their work about identifiying
crystallography condition
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/36833

they made a less detailed presentation for ICCF15

anyone with an honest brain understand that if you cannot replicate an
experiment for sure, it can be because of uncontrolled parameters...

I've always been shocked, amazed, fascinated, by the abilities of physicist
and their minions like scienceapologist, to ignore that evidence...
even when you explain  that evidence, it seems out of their capacity to
integrate that new idea...

maybe I'm too low in life scale, just an engineer who make so many
experiment and planned success, fail miserably, who made so many
deterministic programs behave like alien  stubborn life... I know perfect
reproduction is not human.
But I'm not a perfect nuclear physicist who saved the freedom with A
bomb... that must be the explanation. ;-)


I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?


2014-03-09 19:34 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are
 they?


 Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike
 Melich put it, what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep.

 FP sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what
 happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)

 The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material
 characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use
 destructive testing in the end.

 Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.

 There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I
 think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much
 about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they
 examine them to figure out why.

 The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment
 itself.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in getting the electrochemistry
 and the diagnostics right.


You do have to be good at electrochemistry. A lot of the early
electrochemistry was like tuning a piano with a sledgehammer.



   The diagnostics can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect
 marginal signals . . .


You mean the calorimetry. McKubre's calorimeter is expensive. Others are
not so much. It would be better if we could boost the signal. That is what
I have in mind with 50 cathodes.

I think the big expense is having to run 92 diagnostic tests over a year's
time just to find 4 good cathodes. That could be automated to reduce the
cost. Probably, Violante knows how to make 4 cathodes much less time with
less money than it took Storms to winnow out 4 from a large batch.



 -- but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is
 not the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
 accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
 shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.


I am not bothered by the cost. The problem is, there is no money. If
someone threw $100 million at it, it would be well worth the money. Most
researchers cannot even get $10,000. Heck, they cannot even get permission
to hold a meeting in an empty classroom.



  We should, instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the
 electrochemistry right so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.


I think the problem is materials rather than electrochemistry -- except, as
I said, you do have to be an electrochemist. Or you have to have one in
charge of the actual experiment.



 What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?


The bottleneck is a complete lack of funding. Zero dollars. Any proposal
for funding made to academic science establishments is immediately shot
down. There is not the slightest chance the DoE or any university will fund
any cold fusion experiment, not even for $1,000. Unless the venture
capitalists fund the work, as they have for Rossi, there will be no
research.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

In addition to destructive analysis, the cell eventually dies. LENR has a 
limited life. In addition, once a cell works, finding out what can cause an 
increase or decrease is important, which eventually destroys the effect. The 
data is hen provided in papers, hundreds of which are now available. There is 
no longer any rational excuse for not accepting LENR as real.

Ed Storms
On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 There have been hundreds if not thousands of working cells.  Where are they?
 
 Most of the ones I know of were used up in destructive testing. As Mike 
 Melich put it, what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep. 
 
 FP sent all of theirs back to Johnson Matthey, and they did not know what 
 happened to them after that. (That was part of the agreement.)
 
 The people at the ENEA are compiling an extensive database of the material 
 characteristics of cathodes they make. I assume they have to use destructive 
 testing in the end.
 
 Ohmori had a box full of them. I have no idea what happened to them.
 
 There are about a thousand used cathodes at the U. Missouri SKINR lab. I 
 think that is how many they said. Many produced heat. I do not know much 
 about what they are doing with them. A lot of them fall apart, so they 
 examine them to figure out why.
 
 The follow-up analysis of the cathode is as important as the experiment 
 itself.
 
 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

A project with complete lack of funding. Zero dollars in the sense of
MFMP could make better progress if they would focus not on the calorimetry
or gamma-ray detection or tritium detection or mass-spectroscopy sufficient
to discriminate He from D2 (ALL of which are diagnostics) -- but rather
on getting the electrochemistry right and then running a large number of
cathodes through.  If you want progress on the metallurgy, that's how you
do it, Jed.  You yourself pointed this out in your own call for 50 working
cathodes so I don't know why you backpedal on that correct insight now.

Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding.  Zero
dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
valid no matter what they do but I disagree.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 The cost was not in the cathode -- it was in getting the electrochemistry
 and the diagnostics right.


 You do have to be good at electrochemistry. A lot of the early
 electrochemistry was like tuning a piano with a sledgehammer.



   The diagnostics can be absurdly expensive if you're trying to detect
 marginal signals . . .


 You mean the calorimetry. McKubre's calorimeter is expensive. Others are
 not so much. It would be better if we could boost the signal. That is what
 I have in mind with 50 cathodes.

 I think the big expense is having to run 92 diagnostic tests over a year's
 time just to find 4 good cathodes. That could be automated to reduce the
 cost. Probably, Violante knows how to make 4 cathodes much less time with
 less money than it took Storms to winnow out 4 from a large batch.



 -- but we know that the reason people are tantalized by the phenomenon is
 not the marginal signals.  This has been true from that first laboratory
 accident that burned a hole in the table back in the mid 80s.  So we
 shouldn't be bothering with the enormous costs of diagnostics.


 I am not bothered by the cost. The problem is, there is no money. If
 someone threw $100 million at it, it would be well worth the money. Most
 researchers cannot even get $10,000. Heck, they cannot even get permission
 to hold a meeting in an empty classroom.



  We should, instead, be focusing on the economics of getting the
 electrochemistry right so that the loading threshold is reliably reached.


 I think the problem is materials rather than electrochemistry -- except,
 as I said, you do have to be an electrochemist. Or you have to have one in
 charge of the actual experiment.



 What is the economic bottleneck on getting the electrochemistry right?


 The bottleneck is a complete lack of funding. Zero dollars. Any proposal
 for funding made to academic science establishments is immediately shot
 down. There is not the slightest chance the DoE or any university will fund
 any cold fusion experiment, not even for $1,000. Unless the venture
 capitalists fund the work, as they have for Rossi, there will be no
 research.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:

 I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?

Some:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Alain Sepeda

fascinating... (I suspected bomb could fail, as everything can fail
miserably)

So they even know what is lack of reproducibility...

why do they ignore it ?

dogmatism?


2014-03-09 21:25 GMT+01:00 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com:

 On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  I imagine no A-Bomb ever failed miserably ?

 Some:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Hi Ed,

 

Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that
that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at
the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting
reliably consistent reactions.

 

If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious.
Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example,
allow us to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an
appropriate nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means working with structures
as small as at the atomic scale. I know research labs have already proven we
can nudge individual atoms around on a surface, and even spell words. I get
the sense that demonstrated procedures of this nature are at present totally
impractical, and certainly not useful on an industrial scale. I have instead
wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser technology to
construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the CF/LENR
effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently being used
to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using laser
technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured
technology. I've wondered if a similar mature technology might eventually
turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of
everything.

 

Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes
from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence
the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables
were important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is
required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the
nano level. 

 

LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves.
Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not
identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering
aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found
nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close
as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold
outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.

 

Ed Storms

 

 

On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:





From Jed:

 

...

 

 Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
ran

 a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat

 repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,

 or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

 

 The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other

 experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.

 That's all there is to it.

 

I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late
hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four
successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about
building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly
generate excess heat 100% of the time?

 

I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat
consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.

 

I'm also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major
impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past
quarter of a century.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.


On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 Hi Ed,
  
 Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that 
 that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at 
 the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting 
 reliably consistent reactions.

That is where the action is, Steven. It is on the surface in nanosized sites. 
That location is in conflict with most explanations and is very hard to explore 
without suitable tools. 
  
 If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious. Do 
 we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, allow us 
 to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
 nano-scale?

Yes, this could be done several different ways and has been suggested. However, 
the tools require money to use. 

 I realize nano-scale means working with structures as small as at the atomic 
 scale. I know research labs have already proven we can nudge individual atoms 
 around on a surface, and even spell words. I get the sense that demonstrated 
 procedures of this nature are at present totally impractical, and certainly 
 not useful on an industrial scale.

Once the type, size, and location of the NAE is identified, making it on an 
industrial scale would not be a problem. 

 I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser 
 technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance the 
 CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are currently 
 being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and DVDs. Using 
 laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example of a matured 
 technology. I’ve wondered if a similar “mature” technology might eventually 
 turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as well.


Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would recommend.

Ed Storms
  
 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
  
 From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Cc: Edmund Storms
 Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
 everything.
  
 Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes 
 from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence 
 the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables were 
 important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is required 
 to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at the nano 
 level. 
  
 LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves. 
 Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not 
 identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering 
 aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found 
 nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close 
 as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his gold 
 outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.
  
 Ed Storms
  
  
 On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
 
 
 From Jed:
  
 ...
  
  Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he ran
  a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
  repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%,
  or 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.
  
  The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
  experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
  That's all there is to it.
  
 I apologize up front if this seems an ignorant question to ask at this late 
 hour, but did Storms learn enough about the unique makeup of the four 
 successful cathodes to acquire a fairly good idea as to how to go about 
 building new cathodes that would reliably, consistently, and repeatedly 
 generate excess heat 100% of the time?
  
 I have no doubt that Storms has a goal of generating excess heat 
 consistently, reliably, and repeatedly a primary goal.
  
 I’m also assuming securing adequate funding remains one of the major 
 impediments that continues to define the on-going CF/LENR saga for the past 
 quarter of a century.
  
 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding.  Zero
 dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
 valid no matter what they do but I disagree.


MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more
from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid.
They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
before and after. Without that they are flying blind.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding.  Zero
 dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be
 valid no matter what they do but I disagree.


 MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more
 from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid.
 They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
 before and after. Without that they are flying blind.


Before and after _what_?

My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before the
horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific progress
-- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with adequate
electrochemistry, looking for effects of large enough amplitude that the
phenomenon is obvious to the most casual observer.

That's _what_.

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

I sed:

 

 I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser

 technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance

 the CF/LENR effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are

 currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of 

 CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS

 is an example of a matured technology. I've wondered if a similar 

mature technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR 

 objectives on a commercial scale as well.

 

From Ed:

 

 Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would
recommend.

 

What is your recommendation, Ed? 

 

.or am I beginning to step into NDA ground.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Mark Jurich

 Steven wrote:

  | Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, 
allow us to cut grooves
  | and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means
  | working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.
FYI (pardon my interjecting):
You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography
Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching the 
nanoscale.  E-Beam
Lithography has High Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost.  
Typically, a “master”
would be made using e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for 
nanoimprinting...
... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could
allow one to achieve the desired Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale 
Surface Structures are
needed is another question that needs addressing, but I believe Nanoimprinting 
(although not as
cheap as we’d all like, right now!) would be a good way to proceed.
... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.
Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM
(c-AFM).
- Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.


On Mar 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

 I sed:
  
  I have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser
  technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance
  the CF/LENR effect – perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are
  currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of
  CDs and DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS
  is an example of a matured technology. I’ve wondered if a similar
 “mature” technology might eventually turn out to suit LENR
  objectives on a commercial scale as well.
  
 From Ed:
  
  Laser are useful for somethings but that is not the method I would 
  recommend.
  
 What is your recommendation, Ed?
  
 …or am I beginning to step into NDA ground.

Not so much NDA because much of the general approach is public knowledge. 
Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the effort, 
the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for patent 
protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. 

Ed Storms
  
 Regards,
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 svjart.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks
 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Jed:

You say that he effect has been replicated hundreds of times.  Where can
a skeptic go to check on these replications?

As far as I can tell, when Ed ran 92 experiments and got 4 cathodes to
work, he replicated the PFAHE 4 times.  I recently saw some reference to 50
cathodes, which was about half the ones originally tested.  That would be
50 more times replicated, by 1 researcher.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

 This file is corrupted.  At least for me...


 That's not good. Try again. I will upload a new copy.

 This question is nebulous, even somewhat meaningless, because it is hard
 to count experiments. When Bockris ran a 10 x 10 array of cathodes, was
 that 1 test or 100?

 Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
 ran a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat
 repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4? Was the success rate 4%, or
 100%? Those question are silly. It is what it is.

 The effect has been reproduced many, many times. If it were any other
 experiment, no one would express the slightest doubt that it is real.
 That's all there is to it.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
 before and after. Without that they are flying blind.


 Before and after _what_?


Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.



 My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before
 the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific
 progress -- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with
 adequate electrochemistry . . .


That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea
why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the
absence of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in
samples from before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a
sample and tell beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of
equipment to look at samples rather than doing a blind search by testing
only. The Storms paper describes the kinds of procedures that are needed.
The thing to do is to automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on
a microscopic scale, because the microscopic scale is where the action is.

- Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Lawrence de Bivort

Jed, this may seem unconventional, but has a crowd-sourcing approach been 
considered?  

I know of at least one scientific program -- small, admittedly -- that is being 
crowd-funded. A LENR proposal would appeal more broadly, I think, and might be 
able to raise adequate research funding. 

A key might be to structure the proposal with phases, so that funding and 
program phases were coordinated, thus building investor confidence.

Cheers,
Lawry


On Mar 9, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 Given your absolutist declaration about complete lack of funding.  Zero 
 dollars you clearly don't consider the approach being taken by MFMP to be 
 valid no matter what they do but I disagree. 
 
 MFMP has a little money which they provided themselves, plus a little more 
 from me and others. Not enough to do what needs to be done, I am afraid. They 
 need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal before 
 and after. Without that they are flying blind.
 
 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Bob Higgins

I can tell you from first hand experience that SEM analysis is MUCH harder
than it sounds.  I have had access to a good, but not great SEM for
analysis of my powders.  Features at the nanoscale simply were not
resolve-able with that SEM.  Perhaps with the world's finest SEM, you might
be able to get a picture of a nanosite and be able to resolve some useful
information from it, BUT, the smaller you look, the smaller the area you
get to search.  It is not like you know just where the LENR was taking
place unless something obvious happens at a macro-scale and then by that
time the NAE is not functional anymore.

You may have to do XRF imaging to look for spots where spurious
transmutations may have taken place and then search inside this.  This kind
of work will require a top notch SEM and operator to find a needle in the
haystack.

New instruments may need to be created to find and analyze the NAE.  All of
it comes back to $$ and time - but nothing like what has been spent on hot
fusion research.  In the mean time, there is always luck and intuition that
we can hope for.  In the worst case, we wait and buy one of Rossi's
products and take it apart!


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
 before and after. Without that they are flying blind.


 Before and after _what_?


 Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
 metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.

 - Jed

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:


 They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal
 before and after. Without that they are flying blind.


 Before and after _what_?


 Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the
 metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production.



 My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before
 the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific
 progress -- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with
 adequate electrochemistry . . .


 That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea
 why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the
 absence of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in
 samples from before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a
 sample and tell beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of
 equipment to look at samples rather than doing a blind search by testing
 only. The Storms paper describes the kinds of procedures that are needed.
 The thing to do is to automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on
 a microscopic scale, because the microscopic scale is where the action is.


What's uneconomic is buying a bunch of diagnostic equipment and then not
having any cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the phenomenon.

The cart:  Diagnostic equipment.

The horse:  A supply of cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the
phenomenon.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

It might be a good idea to have a Mass Spec machine that can analyze isotopic 
fractions more than a SEM which is hard to use on local nano systems that may 
have reacted.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 5:43 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the 
metal before and after. Without that they are flying blind.

  Before and after _what_?

Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the 
metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production. 

  My point is that expenditures on diagnostics is getting the cart before 
the horse.  The route to reproducible cold fusion -- hence scientific progress 
-- is in the economic trial of large numbers of Pd electrodes with adequate 
electrochemistry . . .

That would not be economical. Without diagnostics you would have no idea 
why one sample worked and another did not. With diagnostics even in the absence 
of theory you can identify the microscopic conditions that in samples from 
before the run that correlated with success. You can look at a sample and tell 
beforehand it is likely to work. What we need is lots of equipment to look at 
samples rather than doing a blind search by testing only. The Storms paper 
describes the kinds of procedures that are needed. The thing to do is to 
automate them, speed them up, and do more of them on a microscopic scale, 
because the microscopic scale is where the action is.

  What's uneconomic is buying a bunch of diagnostic equipment and then not 
having any cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the phenomenon.

  The cart:  Diagnostic equipment.

  The horse:  A supply of cathodes that have unambiguously exhibited the 
phenomenon.

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Mark--



As Jones said a week or so ago about SPP, we are again meeting in Alice's 
rabbit hole.  

I thought engineering a system might work better than relying on chance to form 
the topology for LENR.  My blog 
Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:10 AM suggests a manufacturing idea not unlike 
yours.  I think we do have technology--it may be what Rossi is using. 

Check out the whole thread-- Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper-- on March 01 
2014 for issues related to topography , cracks etc.  Electronic chip making 
technology may also have some use. 

Such control of isolating LENR locations from the structural/thermal conduction 
part of the reactor would be desirable engineering feature for longer reactor 
life.

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Jurich 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:20 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


   Steven wrote:

| Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for 
example, allow us to cut grooves
| and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means
| working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.
  FYI (pardon my interjecting):
  You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography
  Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching 
the nanoscale.  E-Beam
  Lithography has High Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost. 
 Typically, a “master”
  would be made using e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for 
nanoimprinting...
  ... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could
  allow one to achieve the desired Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale 
Surface Structures are
  needed is another question that needs addressing, but I believe 
Nanoimprinting (although not as
  cheap as we’d all like, right now!) would be a good way to proceed.
  ... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.
  Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM
  (c-AFM).
  - Mark Jurich

RE: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Bob stated:

“… we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.”

 

Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)

 

-Mark

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

 

Mark--

 

As Jones said a week or so ago about SPP, we are again meeting in Alice's 
rabbit hole.  

 

I thought engineering a system might work better than relying on chance to form 
the topology for LENR.  My blog 

Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:10 AM suggests a manufacturing idea not unlike 
yours.  I think we do have technology--it may be what Rossi is using. 

Check out the whole thread-- Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper-- on March 01 
2014 for issues related to topography , cracks etc.  Electronic chip making 
technology may also have some use. 

Such control of isolating LENR locations from the structural/thermal conduction 
part of the reactor would be desirable engineering feature for longer reactor 
life.

Bob

- Original Message - 

From: Mark Jurich mailto:jur...@hotmail.com  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.

 

 Steven wrote:

 

  | Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example, 
allow us to cut grooves

  | and valleys in the target surface material on an appropriate 
nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means

  | working with structures as small as at the atomic scale.

 

 

FYI (pardon my interjecting):

 

You may be interested in looking up, “Nanoimprint Lithography”:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoimprint_lithography

 

Photolithography (using Light/Photons) has severe limitations when reaching the 
nanoscale.  E-Beam

Lithography 

has High 

Resolution but very low Throughput, not to mention cost.  Typically, a “master”

would be made using 

e-Beam and transferred to an appropriate material for nanoimprinting...

 

... Combining Nanoimprint Lithography with Ion Etching/Milling (and perhaps 
Sputtering), etc., could

allow one 

to 

achieve the desired 

Nanoscale Structures.  Whether Nanoscale Surface Structures are

needed is another 

question that needs 

addressing, but I believe Nanoimprinting (although not as

cheap as we’d all like, right 

now!) 

would be a good way to proceed.

 

... One may also get by with simple nanoindentation if large 
patterning/replication isn’t necessary.

 

Verification/Testing could be done by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and 
possibly Contact AFM

(c-AFM).

 

- Mark Jurich

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Axil Axil

IMHO, LENR engineering must go in the other direction; toward the
production of randomness. Outside of the nano-hairs on the micro particles,
the engineering in the NiH reactor is an exercise in random particle
production.

As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active reaction is to
provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This requirement  comes
from nanoplasmonic doctrine.

A single sized particle does not work.

For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does
work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying
diameters.

The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding
power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles.

This is how Rossi's secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide
and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles.
Hydrogen provides the smallest particle population.

When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the
nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the
reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles.

The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage
transformer as power is fed to the smallest particles.

If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not be
productive. If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction
will not be strong.

All nanoparticles of a certain size have a negative index of refraction as
regards to the long wavelengths of infrared light. Short wavelengths are
absorbed. It's a matter of geometry.

A mix of particles of various sizes is needed in a Ni/H reactor to form an
amalgam.

This may be why BIG particles are needed to absorb the infrared light and
that infrared energy once absorbed in the big particles is passed via
dipole motion to the smaller particles witch usually reflect that long
wavelength  light.






On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 Hi Ed,



 Based on what little I have been able to comprehend, I get the sense that
 that learning how to create appropriate surface topologies, (most likely at
 the nano-scale) may ultimately turn out to play a crucial role in igniting
 reliably consistent reactions.



 If creating appropriate surface topologies is a key factor... I'm curious.
 Do we currently possess appropriate technology that could, for example,
 allow us to cut grooves and valleys in the target surface material on an
 appropriate nano-scale? I realize nano-scale means working with structures
 as small as at the atomic scale. I know research labs have already proven
 we can nudge individual atoms around on a surface, and even spell words. I
 get the sense that demonstrated procedures of this nature are at present
 totally impractical, and certainly not useful on an industrial scale. I
 have instead wondered if we might eventually learn to employ laser
 technology to construct the correct kinds of surface topology to enhance
 the CF/LENR effect - perhaps in a similar manner as how lasers are
 currently being used to carve tiny micro pits onto the surface of CDs and
 DVDs. Using laser technology in order to create CDs and DVDS is an example
 of a matured technology. I've wondered if a similar mature technology
 might eventually turn out to suit LENR objectives on a commercial scale as
 well.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.OrionWorks.com

 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

 tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/



 *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:44 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Cc:* Edmund Storms
 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.



 Good question, Steven. The answer is no. The reason for this answer comes
 from the inability to identify and measure all the variables that influence
 the LENR process. In fact, until recently I did not know which variables
 were important.  I can now identify the important variables, but money is
 required to use equipment necessary to see what is actually happening at
 the nano level.



 LENR is complex and not consistent with how hot fusion behaves.
 Unfortunately, the people who attempt to explain the effect have not
 identified the correct variables. As a result, people have been wondering
 aimlessly in the wilderness in search of the gold. A few people have found
 nuggets by chance, but the main ore body is still hidden. Rossi is as close
 as anyone to finding the main ore body, but he is not telling where his
 gold outcrop is located. I'm trying to follow his trail.



 Ed Storms





 On Mar 9, 2014, at 11:29 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:



 From Jed:



 ...



  Storms pre-tested 92 cathodes. He found 4 that passed all tests, and he
 ran

  a full cold fusion experiment on those 4. They all produced robust heat

  repeatedly. So, was that 92 tests, or was it 4?

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the
 effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable
 for patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make
 money.


And the people providing a service by manufacturing high-quality modules
and selling them.

Eric

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Eric--

This blog may effect your prognosis to  come true faster.  That would be a boon 
to humanity..

FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 8:12 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.


  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the 
effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for 
patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. 


  And the people providing a service by manufacturing high-quality modules and 
selling them.


  Eric

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread H Veeder

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Bob stated:

 ... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.



 Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!

 The Blue pill or the Red pill?

 ;-)



 -Mark




One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some
references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

Neo's apartment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

The red/blue pill scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Harry--

I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.  
However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the red 
ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from my pill 
box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of 
everything.







  On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net 
wrote:

Bob stated:

. we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.



Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!  

The Blue pill or the Red pill?

;-)



-Mark








  One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some references 
to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)


  Neo's apartment:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI



  The red/blue pill scene:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg



  Harry

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-09 Thread H Veeder

Bob,
Morpheus says to Neo in the movie The Matrix (1999):
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take
the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe
whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in
Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Since you like red pills that means you are in wonderland. ;-)
Harry


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Harry--

 I do not know about the blue pill or the red pill--I'm showing my age.
 However, given the choice between blue and red pills , I always choose the
 red ones, since they are easier to see when I drop them on the floor  from
 my pill box.  I typically don't eat blue things.

 Bob

 - Original Message -
 *From:* H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:04 PM
 *Subject:* Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory
 of everything.




 On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

  Bob stated:

 ... we are again meeting in Alice's rabbit hole.



 Wrong movie Bob, think Matrices!

 The Blue pill or the Red pill?

 ;-)



 -Mark




 One could argue it is the same movie, since The Matrix makes some
 references to the White Rabbit and the rabbit hole ;-)

 Neo's apartment:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDT3MpSCKI

  The red/blue pill scene:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg

 Harry

Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-08 Thread Kevin O'Malley

How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE) been
replicated?

Ed Storms says that there are 153 peer reviewed papers that replicate the
Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect (PFAHE).
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

---

Jed Rothwell says:
Excess heat has been demonstrated at Sigma 90 and above, and the effect has
been replicated hundreds of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACold_fusion/Archive_4

--
JT He of the Chinese Academy of Sciences says 14,720 times

National Instruments looked at 180 replications, citing a University of
Texas Austin Thesis which I cannot find.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
* THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

This file is corrupted. At least for me...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

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 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%

Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2014-03-08 Thread Mark Jurich

 Kevin wrote:

 | http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf


 |This file is corrupted.  At least for me...

FYI: If you Right Click on your URL Link above, and select, “Save Target As...” 
or “Save Link As” (it really depends on your Web Browser), wait until the file 
downloads, then you can open it with the normal Acrobat Reader, etc., instead 
of the Web Browser embedded Acrobat/PDF Reader, and you should be able to view 
it properly.  When I open it with the Embedded PDF Reader in Firefox, the 
download progress bar at the top will just sit there at the end (I think that’s 
what you mean by “corrupted”), and it will say at the top, “This PDF document 
might not be displayed correctly.”  I’m not sure why that happens and I don’t 
think it’s worth delving into it.  By The Way, at that point, you can click on 
“Open With Different Viewer” and dump it to the normal Acrobat Reader, etc. by 
saving and/or opening it from there.

- Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

2013-06-06 Thread 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 jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

2013-06-06 Thread Jones Beene

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 PF 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 jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

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 danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own
 principles.


 2013/6/3 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha 
 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Daniel Rocha

I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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.

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 danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha 
 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Daniel Rocha

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 kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha 
 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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.

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 danieldi...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his
 nVo?


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I don't understand what you mean...


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha 
 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 kevmol...@gmail.com



 On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
  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.

2013-06-03 Thread Edmund Storms

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 danieldi...@gmail.com  
wrote:

I don't understand what you mean...


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com  
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 kevmol...@gmail.com


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com  
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Daniel Rocha

No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
good'.


2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

  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 kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

But upthread you have already called this actual experimental result not
good.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
 good'.


 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

  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.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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 janap...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Edmund Storms

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 janap...@gmail.com 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  
kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com  
wrote:

O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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 stor...@ix.netcom.com 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 janap...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Edmund Storms

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  
stor...@ix.netcom.com 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 janap...@gmail.com  
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  
kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  
jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

 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 stor...@ix.netcom.com 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 stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 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 janap...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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

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 janap...@gmail.com 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 stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 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 stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 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 janap...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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 kevmol...@gmail.com 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.

 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 jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 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.

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 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.