In the article at ECat World... Blaze is the crow. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/
LENR Simplified: Pencils, Windmills and Super Mario Posted on June 18, 2014 by admin <http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/> • 15 Comments <http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/#comments> <http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/22d03ee81bb4934d6905ce5eb5bcfc7c/> *The following post was submitted by ECW reader Lilylover* Often technical posts like the one about ‘Discrete Breathers’ may not generate a lot of interest. Sometimes they are important, sometimes they are trifling. So, today, I thought maybe I’ll interest some of the E-Catters into desiring to read a technical/dry post by providing a simplified version. This might also help you decide chaff from wheat; and make you more hopeful about LENR scenario. Bear with the randomness and length; I think in the end you’ll be glad you did. ••• 1 Imagine a box as large as a refrigerator with hundreds of small holes barely large enough to let a pencil through. You have inserted thousands of pencils to fill up the box. Now, imagine that you toppled the box. Do you expect all the pencils to fall out of box? None? Some? If you shuffle it a bit more, what then? Imagine if these holes were on all six sides of the box – even in this scenario, only after a lot of vigorous shaking, some pencils will fall out. But if the holes were only on one surface, fewer pencils will fall out after similar random shaking. Now, for the same amount of shaking if you wanted to get the maximum number of pencils out from that one particular surface you’ll modify your shaking techniques so as to try to align the pencils perpendicular to the surface. This strategy will yield more pencils as opposed to vigorous random shaking. 2 Once upon a time there was a windmill atop a hill in a fairly windy area. An albatross and a hummingbird decided to fly through the rotors. There were spectators betting on who would come out on the other side alive. How would you bet? Why? They both flew through it and made it through alive. Then, they said, let’s do this until only one of us is alive. Who do you think would stay alive? The albatross said, “Wait a minute. Surely my luck will run out faster. I see what you are doing. Let’s be fair.” Then the albatross asked for a 5-minutes-time-out to come up with a fair plan. Meanwhile, a poor crow watching this from afar saw an opportunity. He told the betters that he wanted to participate. They okayed. The desparate crow hoped that if went normally, surely the albatross will be dead and he could split the prize with the hummingbird. Not knowing about the crow, the albatross came up with a plan – a smaller windmill for hummingbird in the same proportion as to the big windmill was to the albatross. The hummingbird said that was fair since it would be equally dangerous game for both of us. The crow said, “I’m in. Me too!” The crow wanted to use the albatross’ windmill. The hummingbird and the albatross told him that’s not fair – we are taking more risk, you’d be taking less. How about using hummingbird’s windmill? The crow complained – “you’d be taking less risk, I’d be taking more. That’s not fair.” Then, they said, “Well, then, let’s have another windmill that’s right for your size.” “That seems fair,” said the crow. But now with equal risk for the same reward, the crow cowered. He said, “I’m out.” … and away he flew. They flew through their windmills. Both made it through alive. But the hummingbird realized that if they continued like this, he’d be tired sooner. So, he said, “how about we create a series of seven windmills 10 feet apart and then fly through those?” Albatross: I’m big, I cannot maneuver within 10 feet to be ready for the next windmill. I’ll surely lose. Let’s keep them 200 meters apart. Humming bird: I’m small, I’ll get tired by the time I reach third windmill. Surely, I’ll lose. Let’s keep them at 5 body-lengths apart. Albatross: I do good in the straight line, surely, 5 body-lengths is not good for me. Hummingbird: BTW, for the same wind speed, my windmill rotates faster. So we have to wait for the wind that causes the same rpm. Albatross: That’s beyond my control. How about, you get a little bit bigger windmill to compensate for the higher rpm by the same wind speed? Hummingbird: How about you get a smaller windmill, instead? It’ll be equally risky. Albatross: True, but more risky, nonetheless. Are trying to kill me sooner? Instead of getting us both killed, let’s both use oversized mills and keep playing the game longer and safer. ••• All but Rossi: Let’s make them smaller, faster and riskier. Rossi: Let’s make them bigger and safer. That’s rational. more at the site... http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Blaze, a fine verbal joust. > > But you must admit it is not even close to reality. > > Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not > wave functions yet to be collapsed. > > Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you > needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take > you away. ha ha. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < > blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense >> that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. " >> >> I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The >> microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. >> >> The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and >> observes what's inside, it can go either way. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities >>> actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). >>> In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that >>> atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are >>> measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, >>> the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong >>> the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the >>> assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. >>> >>> People have often thought something is true which turned out to be >>> false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually >>> false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any >>> sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth >>> of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. "Probability" in >>> this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof >>> of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more >>> rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has >>> provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study "increased the >>> probability" that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- >>> it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a >>> somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. >>> >>> Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the >>> "probability" will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people >>> will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold >>> units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and >>> *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. >>> >>> This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an >>> actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
