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 menti
Jed:
I'm starting to run into folks who think it's crazy to assert that the
USPTO won't issue cold fusion patents. Is there a good LENR patent office
survey paper you would recommend?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> ***That reminds me. One
Metrologically speaking, it doesn't matter if an entity creates excess
heat by violating the laws of thermodynamics. What matters is that our
instruments work according to the laws of thermodynamics. As long as they
do, we can determine with confidence how much excess heat the entity
creates.
harr
Cool. Thanks.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles
>> and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And
>> skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
> ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles
> and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And
> skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a "real" peer
> reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>The first tier of people to replicate were the crème de la crème of
> electrochemistry. I mean people who now have laboratories named after them
> such as Ernest Yeager, and people who should have laboratories named after
> them such as Joh
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> . The world has not grown more irrational.
>
***I have no proof, but on this point I simply beg to differ.
>
>
> We only need a small number of supporters to win this fight. The thing is,
> we need people who have lots of money. Barrels of
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 theor
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
How many replications does it take for a rational scientist to accept the
> finding? It used to be just 2 or 3, but in this field it seems to be
> hundreds or thousands.
>
I think for most claims it used to be five or 10 good replications. It
depends on many factors such a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics;
>
***Yup. A lot of people have the IMPRESsion that it challenges the 2nd
law, but that isn't the case at all. In fact here, this accusation that
BECs absorb energy and violate the
Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
> It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
>> therefore this experimental result is probably wrong.
>>
> ***Sounds a lot like the entire field of LENR.
>
Cold fusion does not challenge the laws of thermodynamics; it challenges
some of the l
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,
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 b
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 th
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 m
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
>From the get go, when you come to think in more simple terms, isn’t seeing
a glowing pipe pumping out six time more energy than is going in a de facto
violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> I was going to write this post, but you beat
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 LE
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
>> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"?
>>
>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>>
>
> It is not good
But upthread you have already called this actual experimental result "not
good".
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
> good'.
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
>
>> In your viewpoint, an actual experiment
O'Malley wrote:
>
> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"?
>
> This is an experimental finding, not a theory.
>
It is not good because the laws of thermodynamics are probably right and
therefore
No, for me an actual explanation that challenges that stance I'd call 'not
good'.
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
> In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result which challenges that
> stance would be something you'd call "not good".
>
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
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 mathe
I think I understand now. In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result
which challenges that stance would be something you'd call "not good".
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any
> statistical physics. You
You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any
statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in
the literature.
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
> No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty
> straightforward.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25
No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty
straightforward.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
>
>> Then let's get back to your original statement:
I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
> Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It
> violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like
> watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that
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.
There is no violations here. Experimentation defines the principles that
the theories as based on.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own
> principles.
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Axil Axil
>
>> Dear Daniel
>>
>> The laws of ou
The problem with such theories it is that they violate their own principles.
2013/6/3 Axil Axil
> Dear Daniel
>
> The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when
> we try to understanding the quantum world around us.
>
> This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest
Dear Daniel
The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when
we try to understanding the quantum world around us.
This Quantum mechanical paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It
is just too weird.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> I don
I don't understand what you mean...
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law.
>>
> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
> everything is in good shape. Wh
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law.
>
***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result,
everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"?
This is an experimental finding, not a t
There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law.
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
>>
> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps
> theory.
>
>
>>
>
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
>
***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment trumps
theory.
>
>
>
>
>
That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.
2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley
> This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will
> cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
> numbers of atoms.
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf
>
>
>
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will
cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
numbers of atoms.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> I never understood how Kim's BEC get
I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas.
2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley
> If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will
> have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
> fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, G
If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will
have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
fifth state of matter. The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and
Plasma. To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state
as it
Axil,
I agree, this is my take on LENR at higher GeV range in our Brane World...
http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/dbrane-316079-image06.jpg
Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com
On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:
> "LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything."
>
> The cen
40 matches
Mail list logo
