Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article

[Alain Sepeda]

thanks for the data.

anyway the results are much less replicated in volume than PdD electrolysis.
However in Cold fusion, based on the huge LENr evidence with PdD, we should
maybe stop treating LENR as fringe science, doubting of any even reputed
scientist results...

there are many claimed results by different, competing, scientists. it is a
normal science domain, like superconduction, and when 4 scientist, with
different protocols, claims high energy density with NiH, we can be
confident.

when we see industrial jumping on the bandwagon, we can expect they
businessly lie, but (except rossi) that they dont lie totally... LENr is
hard science.
we shoul not keep our Stockholm syndrome.

to be honest I'm even more skeptical than a corporate innovator I know...
for him, all is clear, much clearer than many usual technologies with
weaker claims.

Nothing is sure in real life, and LENr existence is one of the most solid
fact.

2012/9/15 Axil Axil 

> *We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't
> know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.*
>
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has
> provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from
> the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product.
>
> This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document
> titled:
>
>
>  TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION
> PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT.
>
>
> The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix
> of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions
> might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees
> that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random
> way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various
> nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and
> repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58,
> Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation
> products are also documented.
>
> Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR
> experimental references down through the years.
>
> This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the
> Rothwell LENR library.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers:Axil
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
> wrote:
>
>> At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
>>>
>>
>> With friends like this, who needs enemies?
>>
>> The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but:
>>
>> 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does
>> distinguish between Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups," but
>> then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ...
>> Celani has not been confirmed.
>>
>> 2. "unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support
>> it." Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the
>> author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still
>> almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be
>> adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the
>> matter.
>>
>> 3. "Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12
>> million, but was discouraged by negative results." The immediate impression
>> created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota
>> were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and
>> Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation.
>> However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who
>> would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired
>> article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and
>> commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news,
>> controversial, not scientifically established.)
>>
>> 4. "Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are
>> consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where
>> results notoriously fail to get replicated." And then they drive another
>> nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it
>> was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original
>> reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium
>> cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the
>> palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same
>> cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what
>> appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of
>> the cathode is now different, 

Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article

[Axil Axil]

*We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know
what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.*

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided
us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long
term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product.

This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document
titled:


 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION
PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT.


The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of
complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might
be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that
range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way
in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various
nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and
repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58,
Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation
products are also documented.

Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR
experimental references down through the years.

This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the
Rothwell LENR library.




Cheers:Axil

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
>
>  Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?
>>
>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
>>
>
> With friends like this, who needs enemies?
>
> The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but:
>
> 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does
> distinguish between Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups," but
> then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ...
> Celani has not been confirmed.
>
> 2. "unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it."
> Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author
> is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost
> entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for
> predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter.
>
> 3. "Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12
> million, but was discouraged by negative results." The immediate impression
> created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota
> were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and
> Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation.
> However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who
> would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired
> article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and
> commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news,
> controversial, not scientifically established.)
>
> 4. "Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are
> consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where
> results notoriously fail to get replicated." And then they drive another
> nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it
> was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original
> reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium
> cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the
> palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same
> cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what
> appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of
> the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat
> would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single
> reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a
> series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat
> and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as
> within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are
> consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such.
> There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium.
>
> Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but
> the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is
> anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the
> Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created
> confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold
> fusion results were irreproducible.
>
> 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: "The report concludes that LENR lacks
> verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibili

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Alain Sepeda]

Just propose the admin a bet :
"If you are so sure that LENR is false, bet your "administrative Tenure" on
tha fact that LENR is false... If it became true, you are fired.

In exchange I remove my edit.

If I'm proved wrong, with I'm fired

or if you can safely fear that LENR is true, just accept the
controversies"...

and you can add to frighten him:
"anyway if you are proven wrong soon, and you refuse to bet, I will ask
your revokation for bias"

but are they anonymous ?

2012/9/14 James Bowery 

> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>  Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.

>>>
>>> Deleted already.
>>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They
>> stay on their toes!
>>
>
> 2 minutes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=512455124
>

Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:09 PM 9/14/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed, 
if by "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication.



I do not see that implication. To me, "massive amounts of energy" 
refers to energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For 
example, 50 MJ from a few grams of cathode material plus water.


You may look at it that way, but the site has:

this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since 
it essentially replaces fire,


High energy density, which is what you are talking about, doesn't 
replace fire if that energy density is not reliable. If high energy 
density can be reliably created and sustained for substantial 
periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be that.


That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about 
in this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry.


High energy density has been confirmed, but transiently. To be what 
this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but 
reliable. We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and 
sustained at adequate levels for commercial application. The 
existence of LENR, scientifically, is only a step toward that further 
development.


The "commercial" levels of heat reportedly produced by Rossi are not 
massive. Not by commercial standards. They are ordinary: 12 kW 
continuing for several hours, or 500 kW running for about a day. If 
Rossi had produced 200 MW, that would be massive.


Indeed. None of the Rossi demonstrations have shown what would be necessary.

I quibble with some of the other assertions in this message, but I 
will not go into detail. I think many claims are better established 
than Lomax thinks they are.


Perhaps. However, I'm taking a strong stand for supporting what is 
confirmed, as distinct from what has merely been claimed or that is 
the subject of isolated reports. LENR is confirmed, and that includes 
confirmation of high energy density, but not reliable high energy 
density. Know of any exceptions?


The claims of Rossi et al are not even confirmed as to high power 
output for short periods, much less long periods. Imagine a 1 MW 
plant that actually works. But, uh, it only works for a day. Then the 
modules fail. How long is enough?


I've claimed that Rossi could have applied for patents, and 
immediately started selling E-Cats for investigational use. If those 
worked for a day, it would be great! He'd also sell the fuel. For 
investigational use, reliability is actually not necessary, as long 
as one discloses what one is actually selling and does not misrepresent it.


The same would be true for any of Rossi's competitors, if they 
actually have something. Sell it!


But greed does have a way of trumping other approaches. Secrecy is 
believed to be necessary. Selling an investigational product would 
allow others to investigate the field! Somebody else might come up 
with something better!


And that possibility is actually why patents are issued. To allow 
others to improve products, to build on them, to encourage inventors 
to share what they have invented. 

Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed, if by
> "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication.


I do not see that implication. To me, "massive amounts of energy" refers to
energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For example, 50 MJ
from a few grams of cathode material plus water.

That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about in
this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry.

The "commercial" levels of heat reportedly produced by Rossi are not
massive. Not by commercial standards. They are ordinary: 12 kW continuing
for several hours, or 500 kW running for about a day. If Rossi had produced
200 MW, *that* would be massive.

I quibble with some of the other assertions in this message, but I will not
go into detail. I think many claims are better established than Lomax
thinks they are.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially 
clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. 
I looked about and didn't see where he was "threatened with 
arbitration," which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants 
is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. 
Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which 
is not arbitration, it is where the "community" enforces 
arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics.


5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction
< 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction  
>


If you continue to waste other editors time with your original 
research, the next step is arbitration enforcement


Alan, do you know what "arbitration enforcement" is? Hint: it is not 
arbitration. Essentially, the editor threatened to ask that you be 
sanctioned for "wasting other editor's time," which, pretty much, you 
were. That was rude, but the cabal is not polite, it's not their 
style. A functional community would educate you in what is okay and 
what is not. The cabal just wants you gone. *You* are the waste of 
time, for them, really, but they can't say that.


But I didn't check on the specific editor.

Do you know what "original research" means, and why it would be 
applied to what you wrote? Do you understand why primary sources are 
generally not usable, though sometimes it is allowed with consensus?



Of course, is the E-cat "cold fusion"?


Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this 
article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was 
off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR 
research are of no relevence. 
  AndyTheGrump 
(talk) 18:46, 
14 September 2012 (UTC)


Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called 
E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction 
(LENR) heat source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR 
is definitely allowable. 
Alanf777 
(talk) 18:57, 14 
September 2012 (UTC)


That's one of the problems with the E-Cat article! It assumes that it 
is properly categorized with cold fusion. It's not known if it is 
fusion at all. Cold fusion is really a popular name for LENR, but, in 
fact, it's been shown that the original discovered reaction is -- 
with very high likelihood -- some form of deuterium fusion, known 
from the heat/helium ratio. I've said "high likelihood." It's not 
absolutely proven.


AndyTheGrump's comment above is reasonable. You are now citing 
Wikipedia as a source Who says that the E-Cat is "cold fusion" or 
"LENR." It might be. And it might not be. If the energy turns out to 
be real and sustainable, it could be ... LENR, but it could also be 
due to hydrinos, or something else. We wouldn't know if it is fusion 
until the ash is identified and shown to be correlated properly with 
the heat. The same with any LENR.



Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device.


A thing purports to be nothing. People create purport.

 Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he 
doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is 
going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the 
article. 
AndyTheGrump 
(talk) 20:07, 
14 September 2012 (UTC)


Again, Andy is correct. Now, the E-Cat is notable and there are 
reliable sources regarding it (which has little or nothing to do with 
truth.) I'm not necessarily supporting his content positions, but he 
was, as I recall, not the worst editor involved with the E-Cat. I 
think his name is appropriate, he's a bit grumpy.



In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is 
a bit crazy.


I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it 
was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).


Here is what I did on Wikipedia. I had a long-term interest in 
community consensus process, and when I started to edit Wikipedia in 
2007, I became familiar with the policies and guidelines and was 
tempered in that by the mentorship of a quite outrageous editor who 
showed me, by demonstration, the difference or gap between policies 
and guidelines and actual practice. I was quite successful, and that 
included dealing with POV-pushers and abusive administrators, which 
is quite hazardous on Wikipedia. If you want to survive, don't notice 
and document administrative abuse. Administrators don't like it, 
*especially* if you are right. Only administrators, in practice, are 
long-term allowed to do that

Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 03:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it 
was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).


I'm now getting my feet wet in Cold Fusion ... let's see how quick 
THEY are. (Some of the players are the same).

Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion 
replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading.


One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is 
that both sides are crazy.


The physics community is crazy because they should know what the 
scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly 
adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to 
evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory.


The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump 
to conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed.


This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/

There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive 
amounts of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and 
without producing harmful residue or emissions. There have been many 
pet names given, but we think this discovery represents humankind's 
greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, we call 
it the New Fire.


Problem is, the "massive amounts of energy" haven't been confirmed, 
if by "massive" we mean "commercial level," which is the implication. 
This student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand 
the difference between hope and knowledge.


We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's 
very clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent 
confirmations of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on 
this list, has claimed that the "certification" established power 
levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He claimed that this was clear proof. 
However, those levels would almost certainly be simply what the 
inventor claimed, they were not the result of tests. The device was 
being certified to be able to handle "up to" 200 KW input, and 1 MW 
output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5.


But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that 
belief, and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it 
"confirms" it.


The student has:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate

With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you 
the tests being carried out and the results published live, we want 
to leave no shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to 
get behind this revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits.


I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world. 
I would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how 
to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is 
confirmed and solidly established, from what is rumor and report. 
This "student" has no doubt that there are real, almost-ready 
technologies, he gives us a list:


   * Celani's Wire 
Reactor, Can clearly show that the active component produces way 
more energy than can be explained by conventional means, it is 
economical to reproduce the equipment and has scaleability and wide 
areas for improvement and further study, things that 
Celani himself welcomes.
   * Jet Energy NANOR, Using 
different technology, this can show large energy gains in a small 
package, is easy to transport and to run long term standardised tests.
   * Brillouin Energy Boiler, They 
could provide a number of small test configurations for replication.
   * Leonardo Corporations' E-Cat, A number 
of these could be distributed to qualified testing bodies.


There are other potential candidates such as 
Defkalion Green Technologies, 
however the experiments need to be supplied easily and reliably run 
for over two weeks.


None of these have been confirmed. Jet's NANOR is the most open 
product mentioned. Commercial feasibility for the NANOR has not been 
established. It's a research tool, using the well-known PdD approach.


The others are all NiH, which has not been adequately confirmed. 
Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still 
undisclosed details, if I'm correct.


If we could raise enough money, and had not achieved our primary aim 
by using another candidate, we would be keen to purchase a Leonardo 
Corporation 1MW gas initiated unit as these are ready for purchase 
and place it in say a war veterans hydrotherapy based rehabilitation centre.


If E-Cats are available commercially, it's all over. They will either 
work or not work. If they work, there is no need for some additional 
demonstration. If they don't work, what then? This student assumes 
that the product works and is reliable. Reliability, especially, is 
precisely what has not been demonstrated.


However, the other side:



We have 3 aims



   * Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy 
source we call the New Fire

   * Once shown,

Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Well, very funny, Jed. However,
Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as to what would be acceptable as a
source for Wikipedia. I looked about and didn't see where he was
"threatened with arbitration," which is weird. The last thing
that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here,
they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement --
which is not arbitration, it is where the "community" enforces
arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion
topics.
5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction
>
If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research,
the next step is arbitration enforcement 
Of course, is the E-cat
"cold fusion"? 
Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this
article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was
off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research
are of no relevence.  
AndyTheGrump
(talk)
18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 
Since the very first line says "The Energy Catalyzer (also called
E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction
(LENR) heat source" -- supporting evidence for the progress in
LENR is definitely allowable.
Alanf777
(talk)
18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 
Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. Nobody but Rossi and his boosters
claims it is. Except when he doesn't. Until independent sources support
his claims, what is going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real
relevance to the article.
AndyTheGrump
(talk)
20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) 
In a way, they are right.
Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is a bit crazy. 
I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was
my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever).

Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:48 PM 9/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:

Thanks to AK for the correct link (which I'd already fixed on the 
wiki -- though even my comments in talk have been "collapsed" -- and 
I'm being threatened with arbitration.)



'Dat's how it woiks at Wikipedia. First 'dey collapse you. 'Den they 
arbitrate you. You know: arbitrate! By sticking your feet in 
concrete, and taking you down to the docks for on a long walk on a short pier.


Metaphorically. But it is based on what ya' might call Prohibition 
era rum-runners' best practices, 6-sigma-like, such as how to deal 
with smart alecs who got no business in this neighborhood, askin' 
questions what ain't none of your business, see?!?


Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless 
as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked 
about and didn't see where he was "threatened with arbitration," 
which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants is for their 
antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this 
would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, 
it is where the "community" enforces arbitration decisions, in theis 
case Article Probation for cold fusion topics.


Of course, is the E-cat "cold fusion"? Wikipedia is a total mess in 
this area, and the people who knew how to clean it up, following 
policies and guidelines, mostly have been banned. (Pcarboon, myself, 
and, sort of, Jed, but Jed, you didn't ever really give a fig about 
Wikipedia policies. You were simply right most of the time, and blunt 
about it. Very irritating to the cabal.)


There is no way that anonymously published information can be 
reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, except for its own 
content. I.e., if there is some newpaper article, say, about some 
document that is anonymously published, and somehow it could be 
established that some particular page showed the document itself, and 
nobody was contesting that, then the document could be used to show 
the actual document text. However, *interpreting* that text would be 
prohibited. That's what ordinary reliable sources do. The document, 
at best, is a primary source. For the same reason, when push comes to 
shove, primary research is ordinarily not RS. Secondary sources are, 
if independently published, with the gold standard being 
peer-reviewed reviews of a matter, or academically published secondary sources.


That's what's truly hilarious about the Wikipedia cold fusion 
article. There is one truly major review of the field in recent 
years, Storms' paper in Naturwissenschaften, "Review of cold fusion 
(2010)" That was a *solicited* review, published by a mainstream and 
highly reputable publisher. There are many other reviews of cold 
fusion published since 2005 or so, I counted sixteen. All agree that 
cold fusion is a real phenomenon. There is nothing in the mainstream 
journals to contradict this.


The skeptical position essentially died, as to any living scientific 
advocacy. It's all students of the "I know better than you" or 
die-hard pseudoskeptic variety mouthing off, at this point, on the internet.


The sad thing, though, is that Wired just said a bunch of things 
about LENR that, though technically correct in some way or other, 
will reinforce the impression that cold fusion was "never 
reproduced." Which is total BS. What has happened is that variability 
of results, a known characteristic of the electrolytic PdD approach, 
has been confused with reproducibility. Lots of natural phenomena are 
chaotic, i.e., either the conditions are not known well enough to 
create exact replication, or some critical variable is not controlled.


With the FPHE, this is the palladium material, which shifts in 
nanostructure as it is loaded with deuterium, and which continues to 
shift with time.


But the heat/helium ratio is reproducible, and has been confirmed. 
The variation in palladium structure does not affect that, it only 
affects the magnitude of the results, not the ratio.


If editors cannot get the conclusions of the Storms review into the 
Wikipedia cold fusion article, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are 
being violated. And I attempted to confront this, I was essentially 
topic-banned for it. (By an administrator, violating a series of what 
I thought were established principles.) I was later site-banned, but 
only after completely giving up on due process on Wikipedia. The 
Arbitration Committee had refused to take the case.


Wikipedia process is impossibly cumbersome. One could work for months 
on getting a single source into an article, and even be supported by 
an RfC or other process, and then it's removed next month, using the 
same bankrupt arguments rejected in formal process. And nobody cares, 
and if you insist, why, obviously, you are POV-pushing. Never mind 
that a POV-pushing faction has been sitting on the article for years.


In a way, 

Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
>>
>
> With friends like this, who needs enemies?
>



> . . . 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article
> does distinguish between Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups,"
> but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ...
> Celani has not been confirmed.
>

I agree with your critiques, but this is all you can expect from the mass
media.

Apart from "60 Minutes" and a few others, mass media reporters never do
their homework. They never get their facts straight.

That is true of other subjects too. Read a mass media account of just about
any subject you know well, and you will see that the account is a mish-mash
of mistaken impressions.

In a sense though, you can't blame mass media reporters. They are trying to
accomplish the impossible. They are trying to understand a huge range of
subjects well enough to write about them intelligently. I would never
attempt to describe all the different subjects a science reporter is
expected to cover. If I were ordered to describe things like medical
breakthroughs, the details of global warming and atmospheric science, or
cutting edge particle physics, the only honest account I could give would
be: "I cannot grasp this subject well enough to write a balanced,
informative description of it." You can't sell magazines when that's all
you have to say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:



Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion


With friends like this, who needs enemies?

The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but:

1. NiH reactions are not scientifically 
established. The article does distinguish between 
Rossi et al and other "more scientific groups," 
but then essentially makes them seem similar. 
Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed.


2. "unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of 
theoretical physics to support it." Uh, Celani 
may propose a different theoretical explanation, 
but the author is presenting an opinion without 
sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely 
experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown 
to be adequate for predicting results, 
quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter.


3. "Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s 
to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged 
by negative results." The immediate impression 
created? Even spending $12 million, we might 
think, researchers for Toyota were unable to 
confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded 
Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that 
work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the 
results were likely disappointing to a commercial 
funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in 
practical application. The Wired article does not 
distinguish between the science (real, 
established) and commercial practicality, plus 
the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, 
controversial, not scientifically established.)


4. "Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that 
their results are consistently repeatable -- 
something of a Holy Grail in a field where 
results notoriously fail to get replicated." And 
then they drive another nail in the coffin of the 
truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it 
was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the 
fact that the original reaction, set up using 
electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium 
cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the 
shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also 
from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same 
cathode* would produce no significant heat at one 
time, then, under what appeared to be the same 
conditions, nothing changed except the history of 
the cathode is now different, measured in the 
same way, significant heat would be evolved, way 
above noise. However, ultimately, a single 
reproducible experiment was developed, but simply 
not called that. Run a series of cells to set up 
the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat 
and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. 
It has been measured as within experimental error 
of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are 
consistent with this, and this result is 
confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no 
contrary research. No heat, no helium.


Wired is correct that the field is notorious for 
unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons 
and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There 
is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some 
conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim -- 
just a claim! -- as they did, they have created 
confirmation of a major error, often repeated in 
the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible.


5. On the NASA/Boeing report: "The report 
concludes that LENR lacks verification, but 
expresses this in terms of feasibility rather 
than assuming it's impossible." What is "LENR"? 
The report mixes PdD -- which it doesn't mention, 
but there is reference to "high temperature 
pitting" which has, I think, only been reported 
with PdD -- with NiH. NiH lacks verification. PdD 
reactions have been heavily confirmed and verified.


The fact is that "LENR" is verified. We don't 
know whether NiH results are actually LENR, 
because we don't know what the ash is and 
therefore we don't know what the reaction is, and 
we also don't know what levels of heat are being 
obtained, we only have unconfirmed reports of 
*demonstrations*, no independent verifications by 
experts. (Experts have observed demonstrations, 
but ... it's easy to overlook something under 
live conditions like that, where the expert 
cannot control what is being done. Kullander and 
Essen used a relative humidity meter in an 
attempt to determine steam quality, which can't 
be done with such a tool. And steam quality was 
crucial, as well as the possibility of overflow, unboiled water.)


This article adds to the confusion, it does not 
clear it up. Pseudoskeptics will use the article 
to shore up their "not reproduced" arguments.


The NASA/Boeing report actually tells us 
practically nothing about LENR. I.e, if LENR is 
real, the report tells us, here is a plan to 
utilize it. It's essentially pie in the sky, 
because planning how to use LENR when *we don't 
know what is happening in detail," is radically premature.


What's needed is basic research to determine the 
physics of LENR, an

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>
> I warned them in Talk that there was a wired article :   17:52
> Edited the lede :  18:18
> Deleted : 18:20
>
> 2 minutes!!!
>

That's hysterical.

I suppose Wikipedia has some kind of alert system to tell people a document
has been changed, so it is not like they watching in real time. Still, they
need to get a life!

This is why I say trying to reform Wikipedia is a waste of time.

Anyway, the Internet is finite but unbounded so we can prevail without
Wikipedia. We don't need to "win all the Internets" -- as the mod
expression goes. We need a barrel of m-o-n-e-y for R&D. We don't need every
mass media news outlet. I think there is more money coming in. I sense
things are loosening up. The dam is starting to crack.

Regarding that analogy, of a dam starting to break, I may have mentioned
this here before . . .

*Spoiler Alert*

This clip from the movie "Force 10 From Navarone" shows how I hope things
will work out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxYur1sqnK4

This is the end of the movie, so it is a plot spoiler.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

I do hope someone like the esteemed Mr. Lomax is documenting this Wiki
editing behavior. I think a book discussing the pros & cons of the
Wikipedia philosophy would make for a fascinating educational
analysis.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article / Wiki

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:47 PM 9/14/2012, James Bowery wrote:
2 minutes: 
I've got to learn to scroll before I post.
btw The Lede currently ends with an extended quoted from Ugo Bardi (From
March)
Professor Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence, noting contradictory
claims made by Rossi regarding the emission or non-emission of Gamma
radiation, the location of a supposed factory – in Florida, or not in the
United States at all – and the fact that some of his supporters are
apparently deserting him, said "...the E-Cat has reached the end of
the line. It still maintains some faithful supporters, but, most likely,
it will soon fade away in the darkness of pathological science, where it
belongs". 

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012/03/sinking-of-e-cat.html

I managed to change "some of his most vehement supporters" to
"some of his supporters" -- but when I pointed out that some of
the supposed deserters had rejoined I was accused of doing "original
research".
My summary of  Wired .. which I put after the Bardi quote was :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&diff=512454940&oldid=512429729
 
In a 14 September 2012 article in Wired UK David Hambling reviews the
current situation of the E-Cat and of LENR in general. He draws attention
to reports made by Rossi at a convention in Zurich concerning a new,
prototype "hot" E-Cat, and to the fact that some investors have
withdrawn because they could not replicate Rossi's results of that
prototype. He quotes Sterling Allen as reporting that a 1MW E-Cat to be
delivered in the next few months may be available for inspection. He
continues by reviewing the status of other potential competitors of the
E-Cat, and describes some encouraging results from a recent "Cold
Fusion" conference in Korea. Finally, he notes that "The field
is looking less like the domain of tinkering eccentrics; increasingly it
seems to be getting taken seriously as a business proposition.", and
quotes a NASA/Boeing study as concluding that "LENR technology is
potentially game-changing to not just aviation, but the worldwide energy
mix as well. This technology should be followed to determine feasibility
and potential performance." 

Re: [Vo]:New Miley Patent

[Jed Rothwell]

I will ask David French what he thinks about this patent.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From James:

>> Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay
>> on their toes!
>
> 2 minutes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=512455124

Wow! That's just amazing! What dedication!

CSICOP should take notes.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:31 PM 9/14/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Like I sez, you got no business in Wikipedia. I mean, what? -- are 
you asking to be collapsed and arbitrated?
Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? 
They stay on their toes!


I warned them in Talk that there was a wired article :   17:52
Edited the lede :  18:18
Deleted : 18:20

2 minutes!!!

Re: [Vo]:New Miley Patent

[Robert Lynn]

It is all about the way it is written, a patent examination based on LENR
application alone might or might have been rejected, but by including it in
a list alongside more mainstream applications, and concentrating on
material processing side they have found a way to get it through without as
much difficulty, that is a relatively way to skin the cat, and I believe
Celani is doing something similar.

The patent examination process is rather arbitrary in most cases (for
example vast numbers of ridiculously obvious phone and software patents in
last 20 years).

On 12 September 2012 21:24, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>
>  Isn't this sort of big deal? Not so much because of what the patent
>> covers, but because the USPTO actually granted it? Claim 11, for example,
>> specifically mentions charged particles and x-rays.
>>
>
> Yes, it is a big deal. I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps the P.O.
> has changed its policy. Maybe not . . . In the past, a few patents such
> Patterson's got through on a technicality. I do not know what happened here.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: UFO Fleet Starship Filmed on telescope

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Lorenheyer:

...

>   Then, and only then, will THEY *know,*
> (w/o question) once and for all, that our God is all truly powerfull and all
> knowing, and/or has no equal. THEIR so-called religion, prophets, and/or god
> will then be All Ah or All Uh, "Up In The Air".
...

IMO, discussions pertaining to prove which "god" is the only one and
true "god" are doomed. Under the circumstances it is better to be an
atheist.Perhaps that's what many stalwart fundamentalists end up doing
in a future life - as a practical way of balancing their books. ;-)

Strange as it might sound for me to say this but I would recommend we
tone down further discussion pertaining to the recent unfortunate
You-Tube "infidel" matter. We are witnessing ancient Tribal Law
clashing with the more modern laws of Civilization. There is bound to
be some conflict. The transition is painful for everyone, on both
sides of the fence. We do not need to fan the flames anymore than they
already have been fanned.

It is not wise to blithly hand over to a bunch of hot-heads additional
excuses than the ones they have already managed to manufacture out of
seeds of ignorance as recently depicted on You Tube.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>
>>
>> I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.
>>>
>>
>> Deleted already.
>>
> Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay
> on their toes!
>

2 minutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Catalyzer&oldid=512455124

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>
> I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.
>>
>
> Deleted already.
>

Like I sez, you got no business in Wikipedia. I mean, what? -- are you *
asking* to be collapsed and arbitrated?


Just out of curiosity, how long did it take them to delete this? They stay
on their toes!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Sims

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Good read Terry,

IMO, these are exactly the kind of observations a contemporary more
technically acceptable religion will incorporate into the core of it's
philosophy. Strange as this might sound, a lot of these observations
appear to be compatible with Buddhist and Zen related philosophies -
i.e. where reality is taught to be an illusion. I suspect many of
these contemporary concepts will eventually begin to feel more
relevant to the younger generation. It will make more sense to them -
as compared to paying lip-service to another story about morals, whose
foundations are based on tribal law, where technology is no more
advanced than an oil lamp. Old religions will eventually be discarded.
We will upgrade to newer more contemporary versions.

Harry follows up with:

> so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just
> another part of [the] simulation?

I'm reminded of Star Trek TNG. There was a series of episodes
involving the Holodeck where Data, wanting to play Sherlock Holmes
assembled the personification of Sherlock's nemesis, professor
Moriarty, in order to make the game more challenging. However, what
Data didn't anticipate was the fact that he made Moriarty so complex
(and real) that his foe eventually became self-aware of the fact that
he was in a holodeck simulation. Needless to say, Moriarty, was pissed
off when he discovered this. Moriarty retaliated by finding a way to
hook into the guts of the Star Ship as a way to threaten the lives of
everyone as a means to get himself out of his virtual photon
predicament. This "adventure" resulted in several follow-up episodes
where the principal Star Trek characters eventually figured out a way
for Moriarty to "escape" his holodeck confines. However, what they
actually ended up doing was transfer the personification of the
professor to a larger holodeck simulation computer, one possessing
oodles of additional memory so that Moriarty could begin living a
richer more-fuller life.

Perhaps an appropriate koan a contemporary master might give his
students to ponder would be: Is God an atheist?

Perhaps that's a question Professor Moriarty might care to ask Data.

Lots of interesting philosophical conundrums here worth contemplating!

PS: When we look at ourselves in the mirror, perhaps we closer to
perceiving the essence of reality than we might think!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:22 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion

I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.


Deleted already.

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:33 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
I've only skimmed it.


I put a summary up on the wiki. I doubt that it will survive editing.

Re: [Vo]:Sims

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of
> simulation?

Too much positive feedback.

T

Re: [Vo]:Sims

[Harry Veeder]

so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of
simulation?

harry

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Interesting article:
>
> http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9
>
> excerpt:
>
> "The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly
> the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game,
> you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a
> calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million
> times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to
> see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire
> game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same
> way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state
> unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time
> trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that
> we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we
> need to see it."
>
> 
>
> Not that others have not considered this.  For example, in this review
> by John Walker of Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape":
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html
>
> 
>
> "Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a
> freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science
> class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many
> aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific
> investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite
> amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What
> would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would
> probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by
> the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check:
> the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our
> universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain
> the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint
> on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of
> light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could
> observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot
> penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background
> radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller
> radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical
> measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the
> simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games,
> randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were
> hit—check: quantum mechanics."
>
> 
>
> I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS!
>
> T
>

[Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:26 AM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion
I've only skimmed it.


Lots of Krivit 

ps : Steven Vincent Johnson already had it up. but it wasn't (still 
isn't) showing on the web archive. 

[Vo]:New Wired UK article

[Alan J Fletcher]

Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion

I've only skimmed it.

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the 
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!) 

RE: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update

[Jones Beene]

Thanks Brad,

A deluxe popper, indeed ! Even if the open-source part is in doubt, the need
for a miracle is not.

It will be interesting to see the energy balance, in the end. I hope that
Russ will strive to provide that, even if a rough estimate. Otherwise this
device may linger in the collective imagination for another half century.

One thing for sure - the visuals in the videos are a throwback to 1971, in
more way than one. The hat must be his borrowed trademark, since it seems to
be worn in all of them.

Terry will remember the done: "Popeye Doyle" and the porkpie hat he made
famous in the French Connection. Say, didn't Gene Hackman look almost as old
back then as he does now? Is that the inverse of 'ageless'? 

... begging the question: is there some kind of weird synchronicity between
the Popper, Popeye, and Papp (which Josef himself pronounced as "pop") ?...
or... that 1971 was shortly after Josef Papp arrived in Canada, aboard a 300
mph submarine:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papp.html

Say... is it me or do these strange time-warps have anything to do with the
Bak'tun-13 rollover ?


From: ecat builder 


Hi Vortex,

Some updates on Papp development.. Which most of you know is
a noble gas that is charged (by RF/spark) and drives a piston with an
unexplained (?) force. Harvesting the force and residual energy to produce
overunity power remains to be seen.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Ex
pansion_Motor



An open source Papp Engine based on Bob's design is being
built by a 26 yr old whiz named Russ.
He has made great progress in just a few weeks-- a cylinder
based on Bob's test unit, spark generator, gas system, and more.
I'm sure he'll be looking for ideas on how to mix and test
noble gas mixtures. 

http://rwgresearch.com/ 
https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u

http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659
Bob is chiming in with feedback, which is great to see. The
forum is at 12 pages and is filled with interesting tidbits. 


Here is a (self-taught?) Dannel Roberts and his visit to
Bob's shop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_zWJNyoFgJM
Starting at 22:40 is Robert's theory of how the Papp engine
creates a bang... 


Chuck (a LENR replicator) received his Popper Kit from John.
It contains 15 pages of design/build notes and has a signal generator to
drive 2 included spark coils.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lFt_q69dxk&feature=plcp  

Bob Rohner has also produced a few new movies, one warning
of the potential dangers of building a popper.. another showing the system
running without a coil, dispelling the thought that the coil could be the
source of the force, showing that compressed air is not used. 
http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner?feature=g-user-u

All very interesting, but a lot of power is going in (300
joules?) so a lot of work, luck, and miracles may still be needed. 

- Brad

<>

Re: [Vo]:Website on LENR Fuel Preparation

[Jack Cole]

Mr. Basgall has responded to the questions below with the
following
:

RobL: I dont’ know for sure that the gold or the triangle shaped wire would
make any difference at all in the LENR reactions.

After reading the Celani experiments using the ISOTAN wire from the
mechanical view I felt he was on a path to commercialization by the logic
using the ISOTAN wire.

The process to create the fissures or cracks in the wire he disclosed was
causing the wire to become more brittle. Subsequent that the Storms video
came out and he described his process in an understandable way in my
opinion. He described the cracks and fissures and I have seen those before
after using nickel and chrome powder in a special torch to fix damaged
hydraulic rods.

Since many claims of photon exchanges in the LENR process I thought of how
reflective gold was and when I checked it out the melting point was just a
few degrees under the nickel and it is soft compared to most metals. When
the hot metal droplets hit the cold nickel only a small point will stick to
the base wire and when the rollers smash those little cold balls of soft
metal the fissures are formed on the outside of the base wire allowing it
to keep it’s tensil strength. The triangle shape was the simplest way to
grip the wire without damaging the outer fissure flakes. That shape can be
gripped easily as it is rotated to form sharp spiral edges which dipoles
like to exert fields from.

In the Celani experiments I saw that the wires had insulation and were lose
so I knew for a commercial product there could be no lose wires so to speak
I designed a way to hold the wires at a specific tension apart from one
another using eight fuel rods. Thus also eliminating the possibility of
cell contamination due to fiber insulation.

Also using macro scale logic the Storm predictions, the Celani experiments
and the others working with LENR explain many delta exchanges for the
electron capture. Many statements of resonance so I figured no limitations
let’s acoustically vibrate the wire and possibly a resonance will stimulate
an event LENR.

This is highly speculative however we are attempting to make something like
the physicist theory, a base to start standardization through using
commercially available fuel wire. So if we have known facts like Storms and
Celani offer, and those known facts are reduced to a standard mechanical
form so everyone can use, then we have something to compare.

Thank you RobL for showing interest in the LENR fuel and keep picking
things apart because that’s the only way we can help LENR develop, “things
are logically deduced by knowing what doesn’t work as well as establishing
the cause that makes it work”.

Round wire is more difficult to focus angles at projected targets. The
hydrogen finds the fissures, while loading and unloading and I deduced it
may stimulate a LENR reaction to hold the wires taught and vibrating.






Robert Lynn wrote:

OK, I'll bite Why gold coated and why does it need to be of triangular
form?  Basically why would that make any positive difference?

Adding gold coating is the antithesis of trying to find a cheap fuel, and
Celani has been doing fine using round wires - also seems that round that
would give more opportunity for consistent processing and for the hydrogen
to get in around the wires.

On top of which I don't think that you want large thick bundles of fuel in
a reactor if there is a positive temperature coefficient to the reaction.
 Want thin layers with good cooling everywhere to prevent run-way hot spots
from forming, or perhaps powder in a fluidised bed where the powder rapidly
convects.

Doesn't really seem to be adding much to the public knowledge base (unless
I missed something).

Re: [Vo]:OT: UFO Fleet Starship Filmed on telescope

[LORENHEYER]

Here is my official well-learned opinion about the means or mode of 
Technology that we (modern-day mankind) are using to interpret or decipher the 
world around us, and especially when it comes to pictures or images & so-called 
videos It's really only insufficient, inadequate, confusing, invalid, 
convoluted, misleading, & even offensive, enraging, foul, vile, demeaning, 
disgusting, despicable, etc. etc.   
   Now, all you 
have to do to get the general idea of what impact a "video" can have of 
someone, and, not to (precisely) change the subject, but... The recent video 
made of the stoned-age people that became enraged when they see or hear of 
themselves in the act of their animal-like behavior. Maybe it's just 
coincidental that the stoned-age people simply enjoy throwing stones, 
clubing/burning 
people, and/or naturally tend to destroy any & everything produced by the 
modern world.  
It's really just an 
issue of a somewhat earlier version of mankind, which hasn't yet crossed-over 
from the primative tendencies or behavior associated with there-of, to the 
more evolved Modern Humans which we obviously are. From my viewpoint, these 
stoned-age people are the real "infidels" because they are obviously deathly 
afraid of technology and/or a future that doesn't involve them bending down 
all day kissing the ground (good by),,, which of course, is where they all, 
more or less, *know* they're going to end up. 

  Now, all of us 
more evolved modern civilized humans *know* deep down that When & If it comes 
down to it that it's US or Them (the animals),,, and so, of course, there 
isn't any real choice At some point, if They succeed in their on-going 
effort to ses the total compete demise of US, then we'll need asap to we pull 
ourselves back or out completely, or as much as possible, and totally 
obliterate their world. 

  Then, and only then, will THEY *know,* 
(w/o question) once and for all, that our God is all truly powerfull and all 
knowing, and/or has no equal. THEIR so-called religion, prophets, and/or god 
will then be All Ah or All Uh, "Up In The Air".  




 In a message dated 9/6/12 6:17:27 PM EST, 
hohlr...@gmail.com writes:

<< However, I have to offer this vid:
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlRm87fQaY
 
 and one of not so good quality:
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=r0OIxzFJiKY&NR=1
 
 and, while I really want to believe, . . .
 
 Maybe Loren Heyer will comment? >>

[Vo]:Sims

[Terry Blanton]

Interesting article:

http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9

excerpt:

"The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly
the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game,
you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a
calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million
times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to
see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire
game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same
way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state
unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time
trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that
we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we
need to see it."



Not that others have not considered this.  For example, in this review
by John Walker of Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html



"Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a
freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science
class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many
aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific
investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite
amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What
would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would
probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by
the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check:
the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our
universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain
the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint
on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of
light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could
observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot
penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background
radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller
radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical
measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the
simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games,
randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were
hit—check: quantum mechanics."



I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS!

T

Re: [Vo]:Bianchini's Test

[Craig Haynie]

Indeed, I was misreading it. the 378 - 758 kwh of energy is energy
density. That's per kilogram of fuel.

However, it appears that the total energy used was 8.3 kwh and the
output was between 2.4 kw and 3.66 kw for the 6.5 hour period, which
would mean that the output energy was between 15.55 kwh & 23.72 kwh.

Craig

On 09/14/2012 10:47 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:
> Have I been asleep? I did a search on my archive here, but couldn't find
> any mention of Bianchini's test, performed in July.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1
>
> In it, he describes a 6 hour test of the hot cat, which delivered
> between 378 - 758 kwh of energy from 8.3 kwh of input electricity.
> That's a COP over 50. Am I misreading this?
>
> Craig
>

[Vo]:Bianchini's Test

[Craig Haynie]

Have I been asleep? I did a search on my archive here, but couldn't find
any mention of Bianchini's test, performed in July.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1

In it, he describes a 6 hour test of the hot cat, which delivered
between 378 - 758 kwh of energy from 8.3 kwh of input electricity.
That's a COP over 50. Am I misreading this?

Craig

[Vo]:Open Source Papp Update

[ecat builder]

Hi Vortex,

Some updates on Papp development.. Which most of you know is a noble gas
that is charged (by RF/spark) and drives a piston with an unexplained (?)
force. Harvesting the force and residual energy to produce overunity power
remains to be seen.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Expansion_Motor



An open source Papp Engine based on Bob's design is being built by a 26 yr
old whiz named Russ.
He has made great progress in just a few weeks-- a cylinder based on Bob's
test unit, spark generator, gas system, and more.
I'm sure he'll be looking for ideas on how to mix and test noble gas
mixtures.

http://rwgresearch.com/
https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u
http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659
Bob is chiming in with feedback, which is great to see. The forum is at 12
pages and is filled with interesting tidbits.


Here is a (self-taught?) Dannel Roberts and his visit to Bob's shop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_zWJNyoFgJM
Starting at 22:40 is Robert's theory of how the Papp engine creates a
bang...


Chuck (a LENR replicator) received his Popper Kit from John. It contains 15
pages of design/build notes and has a signal generator to drive 2 included
spark coils. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lFt_q69dxk&feature=plcp

Bob Rohner has also produced a few new movies, one warning of the potential
dangers of building a popper.. another showing the system running without a
coil, dispelling the thought that the coil could be the source of the
force, showing that compressed air is not used.
http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html
https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner?feature=g-user-u

All very interesting, but a lot of power is going in (300 joules?) so a lot
of work, luck, and miracles may still be needed.

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...

[Terry Blanton]

S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you
can have two at twice the price?

Re: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp superconductivity

[Ron Kita]

I think QuantumRabbit is a major researcher into changing carbon into iron.
Ron Kita

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> What would happen if you took a bundle of moderate length carbon nanotubes
> that are suspected of being capable of superconducting and place these
> within a strong magnetic field.  The magnetic field would penetrate
> throughout most of the forest of CNTs.  Now, give the structure a few
> whacks (hits) that cause some of the tubes to contact each other at both
> ends where before they were open circuited.
>
>  If some of the contacting tubes now form closed superconducting paths,
> they will trap the field within and become magnetic once the external field
> is removed.  Perhaps this is a way to prove that they do indeed become
> superconductors at room temperature.
>
>  I seem to recall someone using carbon black in an experiment that had
> them convinced that iron was formed because of the residual magnetic
> effects and wonder if something of the nature I mentioned is at work.  This
> type of experiment should be tried especially if it demonstrates room
> temperature superconductivity of CNTs.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 1:55 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp
> superconductivity
>
>  This part of the paper held interest for me.
> *“It may be that the water treatment dopes parts of the grain surfaces
> with hydrogen and this element may play an important role as has been also
> observed for the magnetic order found in graphite. To check this we have
> exposed the virgin graphite powder to hydrogen plasma for 75 minutes at
> room temperature. The prepared powder shows the same characteristics as the
> water treated one indicating that hydrogen may play a role in this
> phenomenon.”*
> I speculation on what is happening here as follows:
> The hydrogen is ionized into protons and these protons for cooper pairs.
> These pairs then form a condensate on the surface of the graphite grains
> that support superconducting current flow and associated magnetic behavior.
> A superconductive cable or rope might be formed using a bundling of carbon
> nanotubes inside a copper or aluminum tube that has been filled with
> hydrogen under pressure.
>
> Protons would fill the inside of the SWNT as a superconducting condensate.
>
> Checking this tube for room temperature superconductivity would be an
> interesting experiment to run.
>
>
> Cheers:Axil
>
>
>  On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> Excellent find Lou.
>>
>> This gives me some encouragement that I am proceeding in the right
>> direction with my Carbon Nanohorn research.
>>
>> We know that carbon nanotubes, which are essentially graphene sheets,
>> exhibit superconductive behavior at low temps.  Further we know that these
>> same carbon nanotubes exhibit ballistic conduction at higher temps even
>> above room temps.  Further, we know from research to use CNTs in hydrogen
>> storage, that hydrogen ions/gas at certain conditions would dissociate and
>> stick to carbon nanotube walls and hydrogenate and functionalize these
>> CNTs. Further, we know that CNTs, especially SWNTs, exhibit long electron
>> coherence lengths.  Further, we also know that electrons will accumulate in
>> CNT tips and promtoe field emissions.  Further, we also know that electrons
>> flowing on a CNT will charge screen ions that are within its charge
>> screening radius (CNT diameter.)  Further, we also know that CNTs will
>> carry huge amounts of currents, more than what can be explained by simple
>> electron flow theory - in metals.
>>
>> And finally, we know that superconductivity MAY be correlated to
>> anomalous heat release.
>>
>> Therefore, I feel that CNTs are really the rgiht materials to serve as
>> NAEs.
>>
>> One thing I found interesting was that the phenomena disappeared when
>> they compressed the graphene powder.  This indicates to me that this may
>> have something to do with the destruction of the long filamentous graphene
>> nanowhiskers that are associated with the phenomena.  These filamentous
>> whiskers appear to be critical to superconductive behaviour.  This, of
>> course, is what I think may be happening in my carbon nanotube theory.  The
>> phenomena these physicists found may be an LENR phenomena.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I wished I can go back there to the states right now so that I can
>> build my proof of concept reactor.  But, in the mean time, finds like these
>> are excellent.  Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Jojo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:46 AM
>> Subject: [Vo]:New press release on fractal graphite hi-temp
>> superconductivity
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Andersen just sent me this new press release on hi-temp 'fractal'
>>> superconductivity -
>>>
>>> "Room Temperature Superconductivity Found in Graphite Grains"
>>>
>>> Water-soaked grains of c

Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...

[Daniel Rocha]

Why not wishing the money coming from somewhere else where the spent money
is hundred times bigger for the same amount time, like, saying, from
defense?

2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint 

> Daniel asks:
>
> “Anyway, why is big science bad?”
>
> ** **
>
> Had the hundreds of billions of dollars spend on hot fusion and massive
> particle colliders been put into material science, nanotech, graphene,
> alternative fuels, etc., we would probably be much closer to sustainable
> clean energy by now…  Putting all your eggs in one or two baskets is just
> not that likely to pay off…
>
> ** **
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:49 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...
>
> ** **
>
> Well, they do not have a significance to claim to justify that SM is
> incorrect. Besides, they are talking about decay rates of mesons, which are
> bound states of mesons, meaning strong force interaction which is very
> prone to errors in theoretical rate calculations. In the case of a growing
> divergence, more calculations need to be done.
>
> ** **
>
> Anyway, why is big science bad? Without comparing to big government.
>
> 2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>
>  
>
> Researchers at SLAC find too many taus decay from bottom quarks to fit
> Standard Model
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-09-slac-taus-bottom-quarks-standard.html
>
>  
>
> “Muons are generally produced in abundance in such collisions, whereas
> taus are rare, and it's the amount of them that were produced in the
> collisions at SLAC that has cast doubts on the Standard Model.  Instead of
> the 20% frequency rate predicted for D mesons, the researchers found a 31%
> rate (and a 25% rate for D* mesons instead of the predicted 23%).  These
> differences are significant enough to cause pretty serious problems for
> SUSY.”
>
>  
>
> “To explain the differences between the theories and observed results the
> researchers suggest that perhaps another Higgs Boson is at work; SUSY
> suggests there may be as many as four, though research at CERN is still
> ongoing to prove that what was observed earlier this year was in fact an
> actual Higgs.”
>
>  
>
> So they are working on justification for an even BIGGER collider to find
> the 4 new Bosons!  Big science is just as bad as government… continual
> growth, even to the detriment of those which it is supposed to serve.
>
>  
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
> ** **
>



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

RE: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Daniel asks:

"Anyway, why is big science bad?"

 

Had the hundreds of billions of dollars spend on hot fusion and massive
particle colliders been put into material science, nanotech, graphene,
alternative fuels, etc., we would probably be much closer to sustainable
clean energy by now.  Putting all your eggs in one or two baskets is just
not that likely to pay off.

 

-Mark

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: too many taus for Standard Model...

 

Well, they do not have a significance to claim to justify that SM is
incorrect. Besides, they are talking about decay rates of mesons, which are
bound states of mesons, meaning strong force interaction which is very prone
to errors in theoretical rate calculations. In the case of a growing
divergence, more calculations need to be done.

 

Anyway, why is big science bad? Without comparing to big government.

2012/9/14 MarkI-ZeroPoint 

 

Researchers at SLAC find too many taus decay from bottom quarks to fit
Standard Model

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-slac-taus-bottom-quarks-standard.html

 

"Muons are generally produced in abundance in such collisions, whereas taus
are rare, and it's the amount of them that were produced in the collisions
at SLAC that has cast doubts on the Standard Model.  Instead of the 20%
frequency rate predicted for D mesons, the researchers found a 31% rate (and
a 25% rate for D* mesons instead of the predicted 23%).  These differences
are significant enough to cause pretty serious problems for SUSY."

 

"To explain the differences between the theories and observed results the
researchers suggest that perhaps another Higgs Boson is at work; SUSY
suggests there may be as many as four, though research at CERN is still
ongoing to prove that what was observed earlier this year was in fact an
actual Higgs."

 

So they are working on justification for an even BIGGER collider to find the
4 new Bosons!  Big science is just as bad as government. continual growth,
even to the detriment of those which it is supposed to serve.

 

-Mark Iverson

 





 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com

 

Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.

[Wolf Fischer]

Thanks for this answer! Very informative!

On a side note: The shutdownrossi.com site has been deleted. I of course 
don't know why, perhaps it has been hacked... ;)


Wolf


Wolf Fischer mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de>> wrote:

Out of curiosity: Has there ever been a scam in which a safety
certificate from a big and independent organization has been granted?


Interesting question.

I do not know much about scams. I do not have a comprehensive database 
of them. Perhaps such a thing exists on the Internet. But anyway, most 
of the ones I have read about did not involve any actual 
equipment. The machines are just a rumor, a blurred photo, or a 
blueprint that the scammer offers to sell people. There was nothing to 
certify, so it is not as if a government expert was brought in and 
somehow bamboozled. I doubt that could happen.


Many people say there have been scams involving cold fusion. I do not 
know of any, and I would probably have heard. I have been approached 
by 2 or 3 people who found me because of my connection with cold 
fusion, who I thought were either scammers or delusional. They wanted 
me to pay money to have a look at a secret machine. These were magic 
magnet machines, nothing to do with cold fusion.


I offered one of them $10,000 C.O.D. for a machine delivered to me and 
demonstrated on the premises. I never heard from him again. I did not 
expect to hear from him again.


Along the same lines, I have also never heard of a scam that might 
fool experts such as E&K. Every scam I know of would be instantly 
found out by someone of that caliber. I mean they would take one look 
inside and instantly see how it actually worked. It would be like 
trying to persuade an auto mechanic than an ordinary gasoline motor 
was actually an electric motor, or like trying to persuade me that a 
sentence written in Korean was actually in Japanese.


Abd has sometimes claimed that academic experimental scientists are 
pushovers. They are easily fooled because they are not conditioned to 
look for hidden tricks. I doubt it, but one thing is for sure: 
experimental scientists know as much about ordinary electrical 
components as any electrician or mechanic does. Someone like E&K, 
Storms, McKubre, Duncan or Miles can glance at any ordinary machine or 
experiment and tell you what every component is and what it does. 
These people are, in effect, glorified hands-on mechanics with decades 
of experience. They have spent these decades mainly finding 
experimental errors, which are far more subtle and difficult to locate 
than any trick that a scammer might come up with. No one plays tricks 
better than Mother Nature.


It is not as if Rossi was showing his machine to an insurance salesman 
or a mass media pundit who has never heard of the difference between 
AC and DC power.


- Jed