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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
Then let's get back to your original statement:  That's not good. It
violates the 2nd law of thermo.   How is that not good?  That's like
watching a rock hovering in the sky  saying, that violates the law of
gravity.  There's nothing good nor bad about it.  It's simply an
experimental result.

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
No thanks.  Why don't you just answer the question?  It is pretty
straightforward.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Axil Axil
 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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.

2013-06-03 Thread Kevin O'Malley
Cool.  Thanks.


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.

2013-06-03 Thread Harry Veeder
Metrologically speaking, it doesn't matter if an entity creates excess
heat by violating the laws of thermodynamics. What matters is that our
instruments work according to the laws of thermodynamics. As long as they
do, we can determine with confidence how much excess heat the entity
creates.

harry


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:



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


 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.

2013-06-02 Thread ChemE Stewart
Axil,

I agree, this is my take on LENR at higher GeV range in our Brane World...

http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/dbrane-316079-image06.jpg

Stewart

Darkmattersalot.com

On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:

 LENR could be a gateway into the theory of everything.

 The central dilemma at the very heart of LENR is what causes nuclear
 reactions at low energy levels.



 But are the energies generated in LENR low, or are they potentially
 gigantic beyond the reach of any possible supercollider.



 Grand unification energy is something less than around 10^^16 GeV, Could
 LENR produce such high energies.



 Well at least the unification of the electroweak forces and the strong
 force might someday be possible.



 This force unification might be a possibility in view of some kinds of
 violent nuclear rearrangement seen in some LENR systems experiments.



 To start off with, what causes the nuclei of most elements to fall apart
 and reassemble their subatomic parts in new ways?



 Two new papers dealing with the nature and workings of the vacuum lend
 insight into the LENR question.



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf



 *The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light*



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3923v1.pdf



 *A sum rule for charged elementary particles*



 These papers suggest that the nature of the vacuum is defined by
 electromagnetic mechanisms revolving around the action of the constant
 creation and destruction of virtual dipoles.



 The nature of radioactive decay is also driven off the action of the
 virtual particle life cycle and its electromagnetic consequences.



 These papers also suggest that the nature of space/time can be changed and
 controlled by augmentation of this virtual dipole mechanism.



 It is generally recognized that the Fine Structure constant (FSC) is not
 really constant at all and can vary.


 If this FSC can be changed by as little as 4% either more or less, the
 delicate balance between the strong force and the electromagnetic force
 will fatally disrupt the forces inside the nucleus.



 A successful LENR system will setup a positive feedback loop that produces
 enhanced dipole production caused by enhanced electron tunneling.



 If the proper dipole production topology is created, dipole production
 begets enhanced electron tunneling and vice versa. In this way, an extreme
 dipole EMF field can be concentrated is a localized volume of space.



 The extreme dipole EMF fields thus produced gets so strong that the fabric
 of the vacuum within this nanoscopic localized volume is distorted to the
 point that the nuclei of atoms in that volume become unbalanced. The
 greatly enhanced and increased dipole EMF counteracts the actions of the
 strong force and the nuclei inside the localized volume bereft of the
 strong force will fall apart. The control of this strong force negation
 process is possible. Through the control of the dipole production topology,
 the amount of nuclear disruption is proportional to the strength of the
 dipole field, and this could be adjusted from slight to extreme.



 The next consideration to consider is how the dipole force can grow to
 such high levels that the resultant EMF can disrupt the internal mechanisms
 inside the nucleus.



 Each individual dipole is a member of a global mirrored Bose-Einstein
 condensate of polaritons and holes in which all the combined dipole EMF is
 available to each member of the global dipole ensemble in linear
 superposition as a quantum mechanical potential. This EMF is carried by
 virtual photons that can be in quantum mechanical linear superposition.



 When any given nucleus succumbs to the combined power of the global
 entangled dipole force, the superposition of the EMF photons is resolved
 and energy of the nuclear breakup is transferred coherently in micro
 quantities to the other members of the dipole ensemble.



 The BEC is immediately reestablished over the disrupted nucleus within the
 local volume of dipole EMF influence and the superpositions of potential
 nuclear disintegrations are restored globally throughout the system.



 Reference:



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1



 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



 Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
 undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



 Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency)



 The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



 To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored
 ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle
 effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive
 particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short
 distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF.
 That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge
 

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

2013-06-02 Thread Kevin O'Malley
If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will
have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
fifth state of matter.  The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and
Plasma.  To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state
as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists
insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the
same as for BECs.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:





 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



 Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
 undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



 Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency)



 The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



 To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored
 ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle
 effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive
 particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short
 distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF.
 That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge
 amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that
 the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the
 nucleus together.



 If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I
 can’t wait to find out.



 Reference:



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf





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

2013-06-02 Thread Daniel Rocha
I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas.


2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we will
 have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
 fifth state of matter.  The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and
 Plasma.  To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state
 as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists
 insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the
 same as for BECs.

 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:





 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



 Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
 undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



 Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized frequency)



 The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



 To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive mirrored
 ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive particle
 effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this super-positive
 particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus. This short
 distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force of the EMF.
 That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive EMF charge
 amplification which would make the space/time in the local nano-volume that
 the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear forces that hold the
 nucleus together.



 If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become? I
 can’t wait to find out.



 Reference:



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf







-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com


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

2013-06-02 Thread Kevin O'Malley
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einsteincondensate will
cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
numbers of atoms.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas.


 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we
 will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
 fifth state of matter.  The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and
 Plasma.  To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state
 as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists
 insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the
 same as for BECs.

 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:





 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



 Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
 undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



 Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized
 frequency)



 The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



 To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive
 mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive
 particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this
 super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus.
 This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force
 of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive
 EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local
 nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear
 forces that hold the nucleus together.



 If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become?
 I can’t wait to find out.



 Reference:



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf







 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com



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

2013-06-02 Thread Daniel Rocha
That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo.


2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 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 danieldi...@gmail.comwrote:

 I never understood how Kim's BEC get rid of the gammas.


 2013/6/2 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com

 If LENR is the result of BECs like Y E Kim's theory predicts, then we
 will have a relatively straightforward way to set up and capitalise on this
 fifth state of matter.  The other 4 states are Solid, Liquid, Gas, and
 Plasma.  To expect an atom to behave in the same fashion while in one state
 as it does in the other is obtuse, yet that is what modern physicists
 insist on when they say that the nuclear fusion branches for plasma are the
 same as for BECs.

 On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:





 *Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate*



 Any nuclear reaction that produces a gamma that occurs in a BEC will
 undergo frequency reduction based on the super-atom formula



 Gamma frequency = Square root (Number of BEC atoms)(Thermalized
 frequency)



 The frequency of the gamma will be shared by N BEC member atoms.



 To conclude this discussion with an example, the BEC of positive
 mirrored ions in the dipole ensemble can be considered a huge positive
 particle effectively a billion times larger than a proton. But this
 super-positive particle is only a few nanomenters away from a give nucleus.
 This short distance exposes the localized linear volume to the full force
 of the EMF. That unfortunate nucleus would experience powerful disruptive
 EMF charge amplification which would make the space/time in the local
 nano-volume that the nucleus lived in a killing field for the nuclear
 forces that hold the nucleus together.



 If the BEC is scalable, how powerful can a Entangled Dipole EMF become?
 I can’t wait to find out.



 Reference:



 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0135v1.pdf







 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com


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

2013-06-02 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.










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

2013-06-02 Thread Daniel Rocha
There are theories that avoid  the violation of the 2nd law.


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


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

2013-06-02 Thread Kevin O'Malley
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.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



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

2013-06-02 Thread Daniel Rocha
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.

2013-06-02 Thread Axil Axil
Dear Daniel

The laws of our classical reality are but and illusion that fails us when
we try to understanding the quantum world around us.

This Quantum mechanical  paradox is the biggest problem that LENR faces. It
is just too weird.


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Daniel Rocha 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.

2013-06-02 Thread Daniel Rocha
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