[Vo]: to Jed
Dear Vo and Jed, Either you you do not read what you write ...OR You are reporting matters outof context [a] In an aqueous electrolytic system the anode and the cathode are not supposed to touch. [b] what the Bleet Hawses are you trying to communicate...??? JHS I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have made another logical error. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you? No, I never do. Oh really, so no matter what the physical incontrovertible evidence that exists you know that 911 was not an inside job and the building wasn't outfitted with explosives because some experts (that for all you know may have been used to pull off such a job or scared off or simply wrong being outside their experience) said so (you stated as much), no not all experts just some of them. And that's not an appeal to authority? I don't need to read your referenced authority to know what an appeal to authority is. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an appeal to authority fallacy should more properly called an appeal to false authority. That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to say, I'm right and I do not need to tell you why he would be abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other experts do.) Quoting Nizkor: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. Plus you insist that if the authority is valid then no further claim need be investigated because no matter the evidence the authority can not be wrong. The error is that you are making the authority flawless, has valid authorities ever been wrong before? Should we place the opinion of an authority however valid above incontrovertible fact? Apparently yes! More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. So if someone has always carried out demolitions in a certain way because that's the standard way to do it, and then they witness something which is either a covert demolition or an accident, forgetting that they may be in on it (You would need experts on demolition) or under threat, forgetting that the subject may have some emotionalism for them or finally scared to speak such a controversial truth they still are not experts on covert demolitions or unusual accidents or pancake collapses. Therefore they are not authorities in such a case. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. If the claim came without any evidence. If there is evidence however then everything changes because evidence speaks louder and more truthfully that all experts put together. . . . Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. . . . I suggest you read this carefully. Indeed, your experts are not experts in this case. Please note that logical errors of this type are well established. Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as An Appeal To Authority (or Ad Verecundiam as they said in Ancient Rome ), Slippery Slope or Appeal to Tradition in a scientific discussion. It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily avoid these things with a little practice. But if you are biased against a certain conclusion you will hold on to an appeal to
[Vo]:
Dear Vortex and Jed, I post a 'cut-and-paste' from one of Jed's posts. NB..please see comment, below... No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority would you? No, I never do. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an appeal to authority fallacy should more properly called an appeal to false authority. That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to say, I'm right and I do not need to tell you why he would be abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other experts do.) Quoting Nizkor: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. . . . Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. . . . I suggest you read this carefully. Please note that logical errors of this type are well established. Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as An Appeal To Authority (or Ad Verecundiam as they said in Ancient Rome ), Slippery Slope or Appeal to Tradition in a scientific discussion. It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily avoid these things with a little practice. - Jed Comment: This is not meant to 'pick on' Jedrather is an open comment to all Vortex: [a] We read a lot of opinion based on what the poster has read. [b] I would like to see a post based on real experimental work. [c] No matter if your was Richard Feynman...HE would council the comment be based on experimentalism. [d] If you.personally have a history of hands on work with ...say...heat measuring...then you MIGHT be able to critique a thermal experiment provided you did your home work on the EXACT practice. otherwise make VERY sure you state your comment is an OPINION. I also have had grand teachersbut it took at least 5 to10 Years of hands on work to even be able to find out if what I was taught held up. In way more than 80 percents of the cases I found the teaching, while good as teaching goesdid NOTagree with reality. NB: Looking for REAL vs Opinion on Vortex. Please JHS
[Vo]: Podkletnov and more...
John, I figured since you're active I might get your opinion on Podkletnov's more recent experiments (admittedly not that recent, just not the old ones you successfully replicated) accomplished by discharges from a high voltage source. Since that is a souped up replication of the Morton effect which of course didn't involve SC's and rather similar to ATGroups Telos experiment which was sometimes observed to move pieces of paper or bend a laser beam. (even if all replications couldn't replicate all these effects, many failed to replicate the origonal Podkletnov effect which I assume you have little if any doubt about the reality there of) So as all of these devices though different have a very similar form and identical function, and as expensive (and complex) superconducting materials are not required it would seem a promising area for experimentation. I was wondering what your opinion of the impulse Podkletnov effect is and if you had any interest in further research. signed, the other John
Re: [Vo]: Re: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
Richard, did you hear the latest news? BBC reported 20 minutes before WTC7 collapsed that it had collapsed. But they didn't say WTC7, if they had you might have thought they got their numbers muddled, they called it by it's full name, the Solomon Brothers Building which they mentioned had after the north and south tower, it's clearly visible in the background as still standing as the reporter talks about it's collapse. Take a look at the video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet unless it was planned, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. Here's the rest of the email in which I first mentioned it, got no replies so maybe it didn't get through (it is to Jed): Ok, so the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard (and sounds recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off before the collapse and thermite detected and plainly visible before WTC7 begins to collapse, buildings pancaking at freefall speeds!, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an unprecedented power down) and removing the bomb sniffing dogs there after, the pod (or a never before seen optical illusion on a plane?), the flash in all videos of both planes just before they hit (another optical illusion?), the total lack of evidence of a plane crash at Pennsylvania or even a drop of blood, everyone smelling cordite at the Pentagon, the calls that couldn't have been made (and the unreal conversations claimed: Hello mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham, You Believe me don't you? (that's how every phone conversation goes with my mother) The fact that the FBI admitted that the hijacker's ID were stolen and Arabs weren't involved and the (many identified) were still alive. (There were also no Arab names on the manifest, Autopsies showed no Arabs) The plane the Mayor claim landed, everyone was told to evacuate the airport (had to walk) and the flights either weren't scheduled or were at the wrong gates to begin with. (and the pilot of one of the planes just happened to be involved with a simulation of just such an event! What are the odds!) The patently fake Osama that looks nothing like Osama and uses the wrong hand to eat. (Osama is a lefty) And he already denied it! Ok, so none of this is able to even warrant you to looking into the evidence (as you show abundant ignorance of the position you are fighting against), well just look at this video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ You can plainly see WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers Building) in the background as they report it has fallen, they were 20 minutes early!!! This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. No, obviously this won't convince you, indeed I had asked and you admitted that no evidence possibly could, at least don't pretend you position is supported by logic or evidence. This isn't something I want to believe (Indeed I despise those that want to believe in such a horrific crime), this isn't a political statement and it says nothing about what one expects of the future, it has nothing to do with what is easy to believe or comfortable, it has nothing to do with patriotism (well I'm a kiwi so obviously not) or what someone thinks of right .vs left or capitalist .vs communist or any other issue that may be brought up, it's about one thing, the evidence. You can't brush it aside by giving anecdotes about cold fusion, Japan or politicians. You are welcome to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum if you wish though.. On 3/13/07, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Jones, The three views of happenings at 911 have been solidified. One view believes conspiracy One view believes the government report One view cannot decide. Beer drinkers at the Dime Box saloon don't care what happened. They can buy a tale of a 110 floor building pancaking down in 8-10 seconds. After enough beers some can buy TWO 110 floor buildings pancaking... but all the beer in the world ain't gonna convince 'em that THREE buildings did a Humpty Dumpty when the third building didn't even get hit with a Boeing jet. Course, drunks just like to argue and they don't matter to politicos but even a drunk, like a blind hog, can root up an acorn on occasion. For certain.. Halliburton announced today that they are moving their headquarters to Dubai from Houston.. Hmmm. Richard
[VO]:Re: Modified Double-Slit Experiment
BlankHarry wrote.. An article on the work titled Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality recently published in Foundations of Physics, a prestigious, refereed academic journal, supports Albert Einstein¹s long-debated belief that quantum physics is incomplete. For eight decades the scientific community generally had supported Niels Bohr¹s ideas commonly known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1927, in his ³Principle of Complementarity,² he asserted that in any experiment light shows only one aspect at a time, either it behaves as a wave or as a particle. Einstein was deeply troubled by that principle, since he could not accept that any external measurement would prevent light to reveal its full dual nature, according to Afshar. The fundamental problem, however, seemed to be that one has to destroy the photon in order to measure either aspects of it. Then, once destroyed, there is no light left to measure the other aspect. Howdy Harry, Such a fascinating subject with no end of mystery. Some time back I posted a fun experiment to twist one's mind. An old time movie house used a silvered sceen to receive the projected light. The screen had tiny perforations. One could stand behind the screen in the dark and see a perfect image of the movie ( in reverse). The fun begins when you think of positioning a mirror behind the first screen in order to catch the reverse image. Using a prism to project the original image on the face of the screen so to allow an unobstructed mirrored image to cascade back through the perforations and onto another mirror would result in cascading the images into infinity. What does all this mean.. time also has a weight. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: OT: Clairvoyant Talking Head
Jones Beene wrote: ... Last week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the earth-shaking incongruence. A BBC reporter in Manhattan - the lady-talking-head at the center of this forming vortex - as she was reading the news to Brits - with the WTC 7 [Solomon Brothers] building actually still standing behind her in the live feed - announced the collapse of the 47 story Building over 22 minutes BEFORE the actual collapse! Wow ... Despite the fact the Google has reportedly censored and removed the initial internet premier of this vid, removing it totally from their US website, several independent mirrors picked it up overseas. Here is one from the notorious conspiracy-monger named Alex Jones. Was this vid somehow photoshopped? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm ... BTW - the BBC, when shown this, claim that they lost the official tapes of their 9/11 coverage, and that it is a cock-up, not conspiracy. Not sure who they intend to finger as the bumbling rooster, as it is hard to deny something is seriously amiss here, if you can offer nothing official in response. Hmm... They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? Now that is harder to believe than that the video has been photoshopped ... Hmmm... come to think of it - Blair did seem to be in bed with W from day one. Absolutely zero hesitation on buying the war imperative. Is that because he had been forewarned of many details in advance? How could that have filtered over to the BBC so soon? ... The truth will out ... given enough time. Hi All, The stakes have been and will continue to be extremely high. The price of oil is not the only issue; there is also the control issue. When Unocal's agent, Karzai (the current Afghan president), was unable to complete the pipeline deal with the Taliban -- from Kazakhstan through Afghanistan to the port of Karachi in Pakastan -- we had no alternative but to go in. All that was needed was an excuse. This crime may seem too fantastic, but there are probably even more unbelievable surprises out there. What happens when Chicago is nuked and the smoking gun points to Iran? Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
John Berry wrote: A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. As noted previously, the people at Controlled Demolition are experts at pancaking skyscrapers. They have destroyed thousands of structures, some as large as municipal stadiums. Also, the people at NIST are world class experts on building failures. Again, they have studied thousands of examples, and devoted thousands of man-years to experimental research into this kind of thing. There is no chance you could fool such people, or hide the fact that the building was actually destroyed by demolition, and there is not the slightest chance these people would participate in a conspiracy or cover-up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: to Jed
john herman wrote: Either you you do not read what you write ...OR You are reporting matters outof context [a] In an aqueous electrolytic system the anode and the cathode are not supposed to touch. [b] what the Bleet Hawses are you trying to communicate...??? Just what I said: the anode and cathode cannot touch. They must be separated by the aqueous solution. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote: What makes you sure that COP measurements are not vital to understanding the phenomena? I think this question is addressed to Ed Storms, but he is probably sick of responding, so let me answer one last time. The required level input power is governed by mundane electrochemical considerations, such as the distance between the anode and the cathode. These considerations are well understood, so there is no point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. A cold fusion cell is not designed to be efficient or to have a high COP; it is designed to reveal something important about the phenomenon. In some cases, generating a high COP would actually interfere with the observations you are trying to perform. In other cases it would simply waste the researcher's time and money. As I mentioned, the only reason anyone wants to raise the COP is to improve the calorimetry, and increase the s/n ratio. This can also be done by other means, which are sometimes easier or better. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: Now, Edmund, could you please refrain your own humility and kindly recommend one of your FP excess heat experimental papers? I am not familiar with FP as you know. I am looking for good experimental papers on the subject, notably one of yours if you could advise me. For crying out loud, Michel! You should read all the papers by Storms, plus everything by McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and Pons, at least. Do not ask questions until after you have read the literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Modified Double-Slit Experiment
Hi Harry, I've been lightly following the Afshar experiment for some time at WikiPedia. The article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment and the discussion -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afshar_experiment Has there been a recent change in this debate? Last I checked the debate was still in full swing if BPC (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity) was violated. I also had a proposed double slit experiment. The double slit normally detects a photon or electron strike. We could take this one step further by detecting the direction of impact. For example, we know that if an electron collides in a bulk of metal there's an electric wave that propagates away from the collision location. Furthermore we can detect the direction of impact by analyzing such electric wave collision patterns. I see three possibilities -- 1. Electron came from left slit. 2. Electron came from right slit. 3. Electron came from the middle of both slits. It's possible option #3 would occur every time. Another possibility is for option #1 or #2 to occur while still maintaining the interference patterns. Regards, Paul Lowrance Harry Veeder wrote: More detail in this pdf file: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0702188 Harry http://www.physorg.com/news92937814.html Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein's Belief Work completed by physics professors at Rowan University shows that light is made of particles and waves, a finding that refutes a common belief held for about 80 years. Shahriar S. Afshar, the visiting professor who is currently at Boston's Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS), led a team, including Rowan physics professors Drs. Eduardo Flores and Ernst Knoesel and student Keith McDonald, that proved Afshar¹s original claims, which were based on a series of experiments he had conducted several years ago. An article on the work titled Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality recently published in Foundations of Physics, a prestigious, refereed academic journal, supports Albert Einstein¹s long-debated belief that quantum physics is incomplete. For eight decades the scientific community generally had supported Niels Bohr¹s ideas commonly known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1927, in his ³Principle of Complementarity,² he asserted that in any experiment light shows only one aspect at a time, either it behaves as a wave or as a particle. Einstein was deeply troubled by that principle, since he could not accept that any external measurement would prevent light to reveal its full dual nature, according to Afshar. The fundamental problem, however, seemed to be that one has to destroy the photon in order to measure either aspects of it. Then, once destroyed, there is no light left to measure the other aspect. ³About 150 years ago, light was thought to behave solely as a wave similar to sound and water waves. In 1905, Einstein observed that light might also act as being made out of small particles. Since then physicists found it difficult understanding the full nature of light since in some situations it acts like a particle and in others like a wave,² Flores said. ³This dual nature of light led to the insight that all fundamental physical objects include a wave and a particle aspect, even electrons, protons and students.² Afshar conducted his initial theoretical and experimental work at IRIMS, where he served the privately funded organization as a principal investigator. He later continued his work at the Harvard University Physics Department as a research scholar, where he was able to verify his initial findings before going to Rowan. In 2004, Afshar claimed that he had devised an experiment that challenged Bohr¹s principle of complementarity. The Rowan team was formed to verify Afshar¹s claim at extremely low light intensity levels. Afshar, Flores and Knoesel conducted experiments at Rowan that validated Afshar¹s initial findings for single photons. In this modified double-slit experiment, a laser beam hits a screen with two small pinholes. As a particle, light goes through one of the pinholes. Through a lens system, the light is then imaged onto two detectors, where a certain detector measures only the photons, which went through a particular pinhole. In this way, Afshar verified the particle nature of light. As a wave, light goes through both pinholes and forms a so-called interference pattern of bright and dark fringes. ³Afshar¹s experiment consists of the clever idea of putting small absorbing wires at the exact position of the dark interference fringes, where you expect no light,² Knoesel said. ³He then observed that the wires do not change the total light intensity, so there are really dark fringes at the position of the wires. That proves that light also behaves as a wave in the same experiment in which it behaves as a particle.² The findings of the
[Vo]: New paper by Storms
This was discussed here yesterday: Storms, E., Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte. 2007, LENR-CANR.org. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanomalousha.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Berry wrote: A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. As noted previously, the people at Controlled Demolition are experts at pancaking skyscrapers. They have destroyed thousands of structures, some as large as municipal stadiums. A stadium is nothing like a high rise. You say they are experts of pancaking buildings and yet you don't cite a single case where they have pulled a single floor (in an otherwise unweakened building) and had it pancake at freefall speeds. (extra points if the pulled floor or floors are pulled by heat failure from a fire) Or for that matter I challenge you to show me at least where they did a pancaking demolition instead of the classic implosion even if it doesn't match the specs of as otherwise undamaged building. Also, the people at NIST are world class experts on building failures. Again, they have studied thousands of examples, and devoted thousands of man-years to experimental research into this kind of thing. There is no chance you could fool such people, or hide the fact that the building was actually destroyed by demolition, and there is not the slightest chance these people would participate in a conspiracy or cover-up. You're a fool. You won't look at the evidence, you just insist the experts are right, well the ones that you agree with. The NIST has not studied such collapses. Also despite your insistence that metal buildings fail due to fire there is no skyscraper that has failed due to fire before, only the 3 in that one day. In the others far greater heats for much longer times exposing steel, not a few hours of a black smoke fire. (not a very hot fire) But all of that is pointless because you can see the squibs, in the case of WTC7 before it begins to collapse. And the charges in the towers are plainly visible and huge, they burnt people. You can't counter any of the evidence, not a single piece of it so you just ignore the evidence and cite a few supposed experts who are ever so sure it wasn't covert demolition. But all the experts in the world can't undo proof. Your appeal to authority is flawed regardless of the validity of these experts the fact that it is to the exclusion of actual physical evidence, hard evidence you can't and haven't even tried to counter, but opinions of supposed authorities are so much more solid huh? It's not even up for debate, there is no other way to interpret the evidence, the fact is if all the experts told you anything that obviously wasn't true you would believe it because they are experts, I'm sorry but that makes me sick.
Re: [Vo]: to Jed
On 3/14/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: john herman wrote: Either you you do not read what you write ...OR You are reporting matters outof context [a] In an aqueous electrolytic system the anode and the cathode are not supposed to touch. [b] what the Bleet Hawses are you trying to communicate...??? Just what I said: the anode and cathode cannot touch. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. Wow, you must have some creative reading ability to get that from what I just quoted above! They must be separated by the aqueous solution. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: to Jed
John Berry wrote: I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. Wow, you must have some creative reading ability to get that from what I just quoted above! I do not understand what you are getting at. I stated quite plainly that with liquid electrolysis the anode and cathode do not touch, whereas with a proton conductor (gas electrolysis) they do touch. What is your question? I suggest you read Mizuno, Oriani and Biberian for details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Definition of Appeal to Authority fallacy
John Berry wrote: You say they are experts of pancaking buildings and yet you don't cite a single case where they have pulled a single floor (in an otherwise unweakened building) and had it pancake at freefall speeds. This has happened hundreds of times. NIST and others have detailed records of such events. I once saw the remains of a parking garage that collapsed straight down onto $100,000 worth of minicomputer equipment, because one floor gave way. It was MY company's computer equipment! (The insurance paid for it.) When a single floor of a building falls down, it strikes with many times more force than any building is designed to withstand. - Jed
[Vo]: Wiki Entry - was electron capture
Depending on which version (in time) of Wiki one happens to get hold-of, under the cold fusion entry - you may or may not find the Szpak et al. electron-capture model mentioned, and instead there will be this: In 2005, Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory that could explain the experimental results without D-D fusion nor tunneling through a high Coulomb barrier. Based on mainstream physics, it proposes that electrons and protons annihilate to form low momentum neutrons, that these neutrons are absorbed by surrounding atoms, and that these atoms are transmuted by beta decay. Widom, Larsen, Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces., [27] cited by New Energy Times, Newcomers to Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Rock the Boat, Part 2, Nov 10, 2005, [28] The reason that this Widom/Larsen effort might possibly be the superior (yet still deficient) verbalization of a similar insight, was suggested by Robin earlier - but you will also not find that possibility remotely mentioned by either Mills or the LENR camp. However, the all important ultra low momentum neutron of Widom is rather easy to shoehorn into the hydrino (deuterino) theory of Mills, but almost impossible to justify otherwise. Without the low mobility parameter, neutrons WILL be in evidence - yet they are not. Ask yourself why not - and you must come back around to Mills. In terms of 'March Madness' this is a slam-dunk with Mills CQM, but a cross-court lob otherwise...creating the curious situation that to make the electron capture theory work at all, the theorist is probably going to have to break down artificial barriers between two adverse groups, and ditch professional jealousies, and pay homage to R. Mills. ... or to lighten up this current suggestion g ... how about giving ohmage to Mills? He is equally guilty and cannot be forgiven for neglecting deuterium, even though everything he has accomplished might have benefited. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher - all is vanity. Seriously, if you stand back from the fracas, the obvious key to understanding the situation here is the identify of transmutation products: Ruthenium, Rhodium and Silver - all expected to appear in the nuclear aftermath of the low momentum neutron absorption by Pd. This is not news - at all, despite the recent round of attention showered on the Szpak work - and seeing CF results published in peer-reviewed journals, and talked about again with much less skepticism than before. It is a subtle change - but it is there. Fifteen years ago, the historic Passell Presentation at ICCF5 indicated that even as far back as 1992 (and even earlier) --- about six weeks after a Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion experiment was completed in Dr. Wolf’s lab, one cathode was found to be inexplicably radioactive, with a signal-to-noise ratio of ten. Indisputable! yet nearly totally ignored by the mainstream! The only other way this cathode becomes radioactive is if someone sticks it in a reactor or beam-line. Gammas from at least seven radionuclides were unmistakably observed. The major ones were Ruthenium, Rhodium and Silver. Under these conditions, the statistical significance of the data is extremely high. There is simply no known explanation for how palladium can be made radioactive with these particular isotopes under low voltage electrolysis. Fast forward 15 years and here we are - with almost zero improvement over what Passell and Wolf reported in 1992. The names are different, but the results are actually less - not more - convincing to many observers than they were then. But hey ... instead of progress we have wasted at least $500 billion and 15 years on oil-wars, obscene gasoline profits, and thousands of families who have lost ... oops, let's don't go there. Let's just hope some sanity returns our nation once we, the enlightened voters of America, finally decide to dump the Petrocracy and all of their minions in Congress, and divert billions in oil revenues into alternative energy in a non-partisan but anti-petroleum NWO. ... how is that for some major op-ed ohmage being pumped into 'current' events? Jones
[Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy
Hi, The following is an important consideration for those interested in the very real upcoming technology that will capture significant continuous energy day or night from ambient temperature (surrounding air and Earth). Silicon and Germanium are what is called *Indirect band gap* material. This means Si and Ge are inefficient at emitting and receiving radiation. Although recent technology has made it possible to make Si LED's, but that's more complex. The following link contains a very nice table of different semiconductors showing which materials are Indirect and Direct band gap -- http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/semiconductor_materials.html Therefore, it seems highly advantageous to perform experiments using the following materials -- * Indium Antimonide (InSb) 0.17 eV * Indium Arsenide (InAs) = 0.354 eV InSb is the best choice for capturing room temperature black body radiation. I believe the above are direct band gap materials, which means they are efficient at receiving and emitting radiation. It's too bad Germanium is indirect band gap. Sure glad I discovered this before heading out to buy various Ge diodes. :-) Tom Schum placed 32 germanium diodes in series, which resulted in ~1 uV. What would be terribly interesting is to see the vast difference an InSb or InAs LED would make. It seems unrealistic to use a $108 to $175 MID-IR LED for a replicable experiment. Very few people would spend $108 just to verify that ambient temperature energy is capturable. People who already believe don't need it. One almost needs to pay a skeptic to view an experiment that goes against their beliefs. There is one alternative, and that's the $10 1550 nm LED, made of InGaAsP, but I'm not sure present instruments could measure the effect at room temperature. I calculate the effect would be ~100 million times less than the $175 4900 nm LED. The presence of Ga greatly increases the band gap, unfortunately, which is why this LED is only 1550 nm. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy - BINGO!
More discoveries. It appears a HgTe photodiode is just about the ultimate material for this research. It has a band gap of zero eV! Various amounts of Cd (Hg[x-1]Cd[x]Te) increases the band gap to whatever value you want. Here are some interesting quotes -- Quote #1 from WikiPedia: --- Owing to its cost, the use of HgCdTe has so far been restricted to the military field and infrared astronomy research. Military technology depends on HgCdTe for night vision. In particular, the US air force makes extensive use of HgCdTe on all aircraft, and to equip airborne smart bombs. A variety of heat-seeking missiles are also equipped with HgCdTe detectors. --- Quote #2 from WikiPedia: --- The main limitation of LWIR HgCdTe-based detectors is that they need cooling to temperatures near that of liquid nitrogen (77K), ***TO REDUCE NOISE*** due to thermally excited current carriers --- Note the bold text in Quote #2. This material is so noisy they need to cool it to 77K, otherwise the voltage noise is incredible ... bingo! This is so ironic. Why are most desirable things come at such high cost? Everyone loves ice cream, but the calories. I would give just about anything to experiment with a p-n HgTe photodiode, but it's ridiculously expensive. Would they even sell it to me? Furthermore, this material has ultra wide bandwidth. Mercury(II) cadmium(II) telluride (HgCdTe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HgCdTe band gap image diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HgCdTe_Eg_vs_x.PNG Regards, Paul Lowrance Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, The following is an important consideration for those interested in the very real upcoming technology that will capture significant continuous energy day or night from ambient temperature (surrounding air and Earth). Silicon and Germanium are what is called *Indirect band gap* material. This means Si and Ge are inefficient at emitting and receiving radiation. Although recent technology has made it possible to make Si LED's, but that's more complex. The following link contains a very nice table of different semiconductors showing which materials are Indirect and Direct band gap -- http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/semiconductor_materials.html Therefore, it seems highly advantageous to perform experiments using the following materials -- * Indium Antimonide (InSb) 0.17 eV * Indium Arsenide (InAs) = 0.354 eV InSb is the best choice for capturing room temperature black body radiation. I believe the above are direct band gap materials, which means they are efficient at receiving and emitting radiation. It's too bad Germanium is indirect band gap. Sure glad I discovered this before heading out to buy various Ge diodes. :-) Tom Schum placed 32 germanium diodes in series, which resulted in ~1 uV. What would be terribly interesting is to see the vast difference an InSb or InAs LED would make. It seems unrealistic to use a $108 to $175 MID-IR LED for a replicable experiment. Very few people would spend $108 just to verify that ambient temperature energy is capturable. People who already believe don't need it. One almost needs to pay a skeptic to view an experiment that goes against their beliefs. There is one alternative, and that's the $10 1550 nm LED, made of InGaAsP, but I'm not sure present instruments could measure the effect at room temperature. I calculate the effect would be ~100 million times less than the $175 4900 nm LED. The presence of Ga greatly increases the band gap, unfortunately, which is why this LED is only 1550 nm. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Modified Double-Slit Experiment
Paul, I don't know. The Afshar experiment is new to me. Harry Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi Harry, I've been lightly following the Afshar experiment for some time at WikiPedia. The article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment and the discussion -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afshar_experiment Has there been a recent change in this debate? Last I checked the debate was still in full swing if BPC (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity) was violated. I also had a proposed double slit experiment. The double slit normally detects a photon or electron strike. We could take this one step further by detecting the direction of impact. For example, we know that if an electron collides in a bulk of metal there's an electric wave that propagates away from the collision location. Furthermore we can detect the direction of impact by analyzing such electric wave collision patterns. I see three possibilities -- 1. Electron came from left slit. 2. Electron came from right slit. 3. Electron came from the middle of both slits. It's possible option #3 would occur every time. Another possibility is for option #1 or #2 to occur while still maintaining the interference patterns. Regards, Paul Lowrance Harry Veeder wrote: More detail in this pdf file: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0702188 Harry http://www.physorg.com/news92937814.html Physicists Modify Double-Slit Experiment to Confirm Einstein's Belief Work completed by physics professors at Rowan University shows that light is made of particles and waves, a finding that refutes a common belief held for about 80 years. snip
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote: So most reseachers claim they (implicitly) know enough about the phenomena to improve the COP, but it is beneath them to test this claim?? No, that is not what I mean. Please read the message more carefully and stop putting words in my mouth. Anyone with knowledge of electrochemistry knows how to improve the overall COP, when you define that as electrochemical power input versus total output. Improving that ratio proves nothing. The only thing you want to improve is the power of the cold fusion reaction, which is separate and not directly correlated with electrolysis power. It is time for more science, and fewer I-don't-do-engineering excuses. Improving the COP would be engineering, not science. As I said previously, it would also interfere with the science in many cases, which is why it is not done. - Jed
[Vo]: MIB persuasions
Just curious if other people get periodic bothersome PM's from a user at overunity.com by the name Freedomfuel. He just sent me another PM -- Quote: --- Hi paul We have to face up to the fact that there are real national security and public safety issues with 'free energy' and that this is the reason that it has been kept hidden from the public. ... I don't want to disclose more information about how this technology can be applied as weaponry because this is something the public should not know about and you may repeat it in the forum. ... Why don't these black project scientists save the world by placing plans on the internet? If you knew how it was done and you were convinced it was harmless wouldn't you risk death to give something so valuable to the world? This is obviously classified technology so placing information about it on the internet will not help to give it to the public. --- What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern society is killing this planet from gas burning machines. Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: So most reseachers claim they (implicitly) know enough about the phenomena to improve the COP, but it is beneath them to test this claim?? No, that is not what I mean. Please read the message more carefully and stop putting words in my mouth. You said in full: The required level input power is governed by mundane electrochemical considerations, such as the distance between the anode and the cathode. These considerations are well understood, so there is no point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Anyone with knowledge of electrochemistry knows how to improve the overall COP, when you define that as electrochemical power input versus total output. Improving that ratio proves nothing. The only thing you want to improve is the power of the cold fusion reaction, which is separate and not directly correlated with electrolysis power. It is not about improving the ratio for the sake of improving the ratio. It is about testing the assumption that they know how to improve the ratio. Don't you understand the difference? It is time for more science, and fewer I-don't-do-engineering excuses. Improving the COP would be engineering, not science. As I said previously, it would also interfere with the science in many cases, which is why it is not done. They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell! So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request. It is a scientific request! Harry
Re: [Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy - BINGO!
Try buying surplus night vision goggles, or another component that has the device you want. You might be able to scavenge parts... Just a thought G --- Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More discoveries. It appears a HgTe photodiode is just about the ultimate material for this research. It has a band gap of zero eV! Various amounts of Cd (Hg[x-1]Cd[x]Te) increases the band gap to whatever value you want. Here are some interesting quotes -- Quote #1 from WikiPedia: --- Owing to its cost, the use of HgCdTe has so far been restricted to the military field and infrared astronomy research. Military technology depends on HgCdTe for night vision. In particular, the US air force makes extensive use of HgCdTe on all aircraft, and to equip airborne smart bombs. A variety of heat-seeking missiles are also equipped with HgCdTe detectors. --- Quote #2 from WikiPedia: --- The main limitation of LWIR HgCdTe-based detectors is that they need cooling to temperatures near that of liquid nitrogen (77K), ***TO REDUCE NOISE*** due to thermally excited current carriers --- Note the bold text in Quote #2. This material is so noisy they need to cool it to 77K, otherwise the voltage noise is incredible ... bingo! This is so ironic. Why are most desirable things come at such high cost? Everyone loves ice cream, but the calories. I would give just about anything to experiment with a p-n HgTe photodiode, but it's ridiculously expensive. Would they even sell it to me? Furthermore, this material has ultra wide bandwidth. Mercury(II) cadmium(II) telluride (HgCdTe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HgCdTe band gap image diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HgCdTe_Eg_vs_x.PNG Regards, Paul Lowrance Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, The following is an important consideration for those interested in the very real upcoming technology that will capture significant continuous energy day or night from ambient temperature (surrounding air and Earth). Silicon and Germanium are what is called *Indirect band gap* material. This means Si and Ge are inefficient at emitting and receiving radiation. Although recent technology has made it possible to make Si LED's, but that's more complex. The following link contains a very nice table of different semiconductors showing which materials are Indirect and Direct band gap -- http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/semiconductor_materials.html Therefore, it seems highly advantageous to perform experiments using the following materials -- * Indium Antimonide (InSb) 0.17 eV * Indium Arsenide (InAs) = 0.354 eV InSb is the best choice for capturing room temperature black body radiation. I believe the above are direct band gap materials, which means they are efficient at receiving and emitting radiation. It's too bad Germanium is indirect band gap. Sure glad I discovered this before heading out to buy various Ge diodes. :-) Tom Schum placed 32 germanium diodes in series, which resulted in ~1 uV. What would be terribly interesting is to see the vast difference an InSb or InAs LED would make. It seems unrealistic to use a $108 to $175 MID-IR LED for a replicable experiment. Very few people would spend $108 just to verify that ambient temperature energy is capturable. People who already believe don't need it. One almost needs to pay a skeptic to view an experiment that goes against their beliefs. There is one alternative, and that's the $10 1550 nm LED, made of InGaAsP, but I'm not sure present instruments could measure the effect at room temperature. I calculate the effect would be ~100 million times less than the $175 4900 nm LED. The presence of Ga greatly increases the band gap, unfortunately, which is why this LED is only 1550 nm. Regards, Paul Lowrance The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote: point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern society is killing this planet from gas burning machines. Actually, they would be more interested in your research if you could prove it is compliant with every known theory in modern physics, first. And then, being in full compliance, you would also have to show your research expands upon the known knowledge, otherwise it is completely meaningless. Dave
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern society is killing this planet from gas burning machines. Actually, they would be more interested in your research if you could prove it is compliant with every known theory in modern physics, first. And then, being in full compliance, you would also have to show your research expands upon the known knowledge, otherwise it is completely meaningless. Dave No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology. You're thinking of the science community, which does indeed require entirely new theories to at least predict everything present theories predict, and rightfully so. :-) Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy - BINGO!
Howdy Paul, You may try contacting Leupold Stevens Instrument Company in Beaverton/Portland, Oregon. They do some work in this area with night vision scopes. They are good people. Richard - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy - BINGO! That's an idea. It could be difficult to verify what type of active material the FIR goggles use. I think public night vision goggles use InSb or similar material. The very expensive military night vision goggles use the expensive HgCdTe god material. Not sure, but perhaps the really cheap goggles use photoelectric material? I know the photoelectric effect generates DC voltage caused by temperature *differentials*. Regards, Paul Lowrance Gibson Elliot wrote: Try buying surplus night vision goggles, or another component that has the device you want. You might be able to scavenge parts... Just a thought G --- Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More discoveries. It appears a HgTe photodiode is just about the ultimate material for this research. It has a band gap of zero eV! Various amounts of Cd (Hg[x-1]Cd[x]Te) increases the band gap to whatever value you want. Here are some interesting quotes -- Quote #1 from WikiPedia: --- Owing to its cost, the use of HgCdTe has so far been restricted to the military field and infrared astronomy research. Military technology depends on HgCdTe for night vision. In particular, the US air force makes extensive use of HgCdTe on all aircraft, and to equip airborne smart bombs. A variety of heat-seeking missiles are also equipped with HgCdTe detectors. --- Quote #2 from WikiPedia: --- The main limitation of LWIR HgCdTe-based detectors is that they need cooling to temperatures near that of liquid nitrogen (77K), ***TO REDUCE NOISE*** due to thermally excited current carriers --- Note the bold text in Quote #2. This material is so noisy they need to cool it to 77K, otherwise the voltage noise is incredible ... bingo! This is so ironic. Why are most desirable things come at such high cost? Everyone loves ice cream, but the calories. I would give just about anything to experiment with a p-n HgTe photodiode, but it's ridiculously expensive. Would they even sell it to me? Furthermore, this material has ultra wide bandwidth. Mercury(II) cadmium(II) telluride (HgCdTe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HgCdTe band gap image diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HgCdTe_Eg_vs_x.PNG Regards, Paul Lowrance Paul Lowrance wrote: Hi, The following is an important consideration for those interested in the very real upcoming technology that will capture significant continuous energy day or night from ambient temperature (surrounding air and Earth). Silicon and Germanium are what is called *Indirect band gap* material. This means Si and Ge are inefficient at emitting and receiving radiation. Although recent technology has made it possible to make Si LED's, but that's more complex. The following link contains a very nice table of different semiconductors showing which materials are Indirect and Direct band gap -- http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/semiconductor_materials.html Therefore, it seems highly advantageous to perform experiments using the following materials -- * Indium Antimonide (InSb) 0.17 eV * Indium Arsenide (InAs) = 0.354 eV InSb is the best choice for capturing room temperature black body radiation. I believe the above are direct band gap materials, which means they are efficient at receiving and emitting radiation. It's too bad Germanium is indirect band gap. Sure glad I discovered this before heading out to buy various Ge diodes. :-) Tom Schum placed 32 germanium diodes in series, which resulted in ~1 uV. What would be terribly interesting is to see the vast difference an InSb or InAs LED would make. It seems unrealistic to use a $108 to $175 MID-IR LED for a replicable experiment. Very few people would spend $108 just to verify that ambient temperature energy is capturable. People who already believe don't need it. One almost needs to pay a skeptic to view an experiment that goes against their beliefs. There is one alternative, and that's the $10 1550 nm LED, made of InGaAsP, but I'm not sure present instruments could measure the effect at room temperature. I calculate the effect would be ~100 million times less than the $175 4900 nm LED. The presence of Ga greatly increases the band gap, unfortunately, which is why this LED is only 1550 nm. Regards, Paul Lowrance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date: 3/12/2007
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Howdy Paul, I thought you may have picked up on my comment regarding light has weight and expand on it. Richard - Original Message - From: Paul Lowrance [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern society is killing this planet from gas burning machines. Actually, they would be more interested in your research if you could prove it is compliant with every known theory in modern physics, first. And then, being in full compliance, you would also have to show your research expands upon the known knowledge, otherwise it is completely meaningless. Dave No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology. You're thinking of the science community, which does indeed require entirely new theories to at least predict everything present theories predict, and rightfully so. :-) Regards, Paul -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date: 3/12/2007 7:19 PM
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology. You're thinking of the science community, There is technically no such thing as advanced technology that is not defined as science that works. The imagined thugs are no more than scientists asking you to put up or shut up. Either you can demonstrate that your research adheres to all the known science laws, and then improves on them, or you cannot. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. Dave
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology. You're thinking of the science community, There is technically no such thing as advanced technology that is not defined as science that works. Advanced technology is leading edge technology. The imagined thugs are no more than scientists asking you to put up or shut up. No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue countries such as Iran or North Korea. Either you can demonstrate that your research adheres to all the known science laws, and then improves on them, or you cannot. All measuring devices have input capacitance. When you measure thermal noise for instance you are viewing a capacitor that was charged by such thermal noise. If that breaks your laws of physics then so be it. It does not break any laws by my understanding of physics. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. No, I go by the laws of probability. In Unix security world there's a well known Mandrake install mode called paranoid mode. An SA is wise to install a Unix server in such a mode. From my POV it is called cheap insurance. The U.S. military does not want weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or rogue countries. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that an half intelligent group would use simple tactics to suppress technology that may lead to such weapons of mass destruction. I'm a little surprised in your comments since IMHO they show very little foresight and intelligence. Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything? If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another thread? I think the single electron double slit experiment would be a great start. Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
- Jed I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one, and not only won't it make any useful difference to improve it, but since the difference is not lost but recovered as heat, it won't make any difference _at all_ to the overall COP, which will always be: COP = (electrical_in + nuclear)/electrical_in = 1 + nuclear/electrical_in agreed? - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) -- Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Harry Veeder wrote: point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: - Jed I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one, and not only won't it make any useful difference to improve it, but since the difference is not lost but recovered as heat, it won't make any difference _at all_ to the overall COP, which will always be: COP = (electrical_in + nuclear)/electrical_in = 1 + nuclear/electrical_in agreed? - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Harry Veeder wrote: point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote:- They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell! So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request. It is a scientific request! This COP you are talking about is the ratio of input electrical power to output heat. Jed was trying to explain to you that this figure is only marginally relevant to improving the CF reaction. This topic was discussed right back at the beginning, almost 17 years ago. This COP ratio that you think is so important is somewhat like reducing the force necessary to push the accelerator (gas) pedal in a car and then claiming that halving the foot pressure has doubled the efficiency of the motor... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue countries such as Iran or North Korea. You mean like machine guns, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs? It's a little late for that, don't you think? And what business do you have providing technology to rogue countries in the first place? If that breaks your laws of physics then so be it. What does it matter to you whether it breaks my laws of physics? It's the establishment you need to impress with your extensive knowledge, not me. If you claim to have new technology, you need to show the science behind it does not violate any known laws of physics and adds something new that we didn't know before. Certainly your new technology doesn't have anything to do with using a battery in a new way, upside-down for example. What do you think you could possibly have figured out that hundreds of thousands of top minds working directly for the military haven't already thought of? Unless you have found a new way to quantify physics, or added new laws, you haven't got any new technology. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. No, I go by the laws of probability. And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything? If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another thread? Are you telling me what to do? Would you like me to tell you what to do? Dave
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Take your time, I'll go offline now. Talk to you tomorrow. Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. I am not talking about increasing the COP of a electrochemical cell. That would mean getting the cell to generate more electrical power. I am taking about increasing the COP of a CF cell which happens to be partly electrochemical. This means getting the cell to generate more heat for the same or less input power. Ed claims he knows how this can be done. Why not turn his claim into a testable conjecture? If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. When you combine electrochemistry with CF you are entering uncharted territory. Harry
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in research geared toward generating so-called free energy. Are you are working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this conversation. See my comments below. David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue countries such as Iran or North Korea. You mean like machine guns, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs? No. And what business do you have providing technology to rogue countries in the first place? I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient temperature as a source of usable power. If that breaks your laws of physics then so be it. What does it matter to you whether it breaks my laws of physics? This needs clarification since it makes no difference to me if it breaks your laws of Aether physics. No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in an Aether theory. It's the establishment you need to impress with your extensive knowledge, not me. If you claim to have new technology, you need to show the science behind it does not violate any known laws of physics and adds something new that we didn't know before. People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My primary focus is on designing a so-called free energy machine based on magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics. Certainly your new technology doesn't have anything to do with using a battery in a new way, upside-down for example. What do you think you could possibly have figured out that hundreds of thousands of top minds working directly for the military haven't already thought of? I see that as fuzzy logic. There always has and will be individuals that make breakthroughs in technology, theories, etc. etc. Unless you have found a new way to quantify physics, or added new laws, you haven't got any new technology. I see that as fuzzy logic. Individuals have and will continue to develop new technology based on present physics theories. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. No, I go by the laws of probability. And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Allow me to clarify. I place high probability the U.S. government would try and prevent new technology that could easily lead to weapons of mass destruction. I place high probability there are highly intelligent people within the U.S. government. I place high probability such intelligent people are attempting to prevent such technology. Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything? If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another thread? Are you telling me what to do? Would you like me to tell you what to do? Please take a look at what you replied to. Both of my statements were questions. My two questions did not tell you what to do. Regards, Paul
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Nick Palmer wrote: Harry Veeder wrote:- They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell! So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request. It is a scientific request! This COP you are talking about is the ratio of input electrical power to output heat. Jed was trying to explain to you that this figure is only marginally relevant to improving the CF reaction. This topic was discussed right back at the beginning, almost 17 years ago. This COP ratio that you think is so important is somewhat like reducing the force necessary to push the accelerator (gas) pedal in a car and then claiming that halving the foot pressure has doubled the efficiency of the motor... Nick Palmer It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the gasoline, the COP is still much bigger. Harry
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in research geared toward generating so-called free energy. Are you are working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this conversation. Funny how focused and serious you become when it is your work being criticized isn't it? You seem not to think much about giving me a long list of other theories that I have to explain with my work, but such requirements don't apply to you. You think you are special, and above the system. For some reason (and you'll come up with another long list, I'm sure), the rules don't apply to you. I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient temperature as a source of usable power. This has already been proved as impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics You are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself for questioning the establishment. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. You might as well spend the next three years in seclusion, if necessary, and not waste anybody else's time with your unwanted theories. No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in an Aether theory. No offense, but at the moment I think your theory is a total waste of bandwidth, since even the wikiwizzes know that what you want to do is impossible. BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Are you actually admitting that you wouldn't even read my work if I did work out a complete comparison between the Aether Physics Model and all known physics theories? That rather puts your genuineness into proper perspective, doesn't it? People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My primary focus is on designing a so-called free energy machine based on magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics. Talk about a hypocrite! You have this wild-eyed concept of breaking known laws of physics and you haven't even worked out the math, yet. I have presented a fully quantified Aether (which means I have worked out the math), and also provided new testable physics laws and a fundamentally important electron binding energy equation. Yet, you tell me I have to solve all of the Universe before you will listen, and you want us to listen to your wild dreams? I see that as fuzzy logic. For you, it should be called hypocrisy and dreaming. There always has and will be individuals that make breakthroughs in technology, theories, etc. etc. Not if you can prevent it, right? No, I go by the laws of probability. And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Allow me to clarify. I place high probability the U.S. government would try and prevent new technology that could easily lead to weapons of mass destruction. I place high probability there are highly intelligent people within the U.S. government. I place high probability such intelligent people are attempting to prevent such technology. Your clarification makes it absolutely evident that you imagine a conspiracy. Dave
[Vo]: Earthquake in NE Ohio
Loud Explosion effect similar to hypothesized scalar interferometry. Ravenna(Portage Co Ohio) Military arsenal near epicenter; Folks near center not experience shock wave but outwards from center shock wave evident at 3.6 on Richter scale. Effects predominant ALONG OHIO TURNPIKE FROM EAST TO WEST at least some 20 miles. Geologists were asked to comment why the quake sounded more like an airborne explosion then a regular earthquake whereby Hanson of regional earthquake center reported that the slatelike rock deposits of minerals in the OHIO area enables the rock sliding stresses upon underground fracturous collisons of sliding rock formations deep under the earth; but anyhoots he says three miles under the earth this happened, and because the rock is very acoustic or something, the loud booming noise from this collision goes straight through the earth and makes an auditory malfunction of sorts, where the booming noise seems omnipresent. Anyways I think I was about 5 miles from the epicenter, but reports near the center itself seem abscent on the explosive aspects, but reports many miles away from the epicenter seem to indicate typical reports of tremors where things seem to tremble for several seconds, yet nearer to the epicenter no such thing occured, it was a single loud vibration acomplished within a split second. This totally alarmed all of the resident towns along the Ohio Turnpike, but the effect was somewhat localized along this line from East to West, whereby no significant reports came from either Akron or Cleveland Ohio. I wonder if the center of an earthquake is like the eye of a hurricane; whereby the center shows little effects, but outwards from there the effects reveal themselves with distance? HDN Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Howdy David and Paul, Please don't throw things in the saloon in Dime Box Texas. Someone may break the mirror behind the bar with the picture of the nekkid woman and get a fight started. Richard
Re: [VO]:Re: Modified Double-Slit Experiment
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Harry wrote.. An article on the work titled Paradox in Wave-Particle Duality recently published in Foundations of Physics, a prestigious, refereed academic journal, supports Albert Einsteins long-debated belief that quantum physics is incomplete. For eight decades the scientific community generally had supported Niels Bohrs ideas commonly known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1927, in his ½Principle of Complementarity, he asserted that in any experiment light shows only one aspect at a time, either it behaves as a wave or as a particle. Einstein was deeply troubled by that principle, since he could not accept that any external measurement would prevent light to reveal its full dual nature, according to Afshar. The fundamental problem, however, seemed to be that one has to destroy the photon in order to measure either aspects of it. Then, once destroyed, there is no light left to measure the other aspect. Howdy Harry, Such a fascinating subject with no end of mystery. Some time back I posted a fun experiment to twist one's mind. An old time movie house used a silvered sceen to receive the projected light. The screen had tiny perforations. One could stand behind the screen in the dark and see a perfect image of the movie ( in reverse). The fun begins when you think of positioning a mirror behind the first screen in order to catch the reverse image. Using a prism to project the original image on the face of the screen so to allow an unobstructed mirrored image to cascade back through the perforations and onto another mirror would result in cascading the images into infinity. What does all this mean.. time also has a weight. Richard You can do something similar with a video camera and a monitor. Connect the monitor to the video camera so it displays the the video image in real time, then point the video camera at the monitor Harry
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in research geared toward generating so-called free energy. Are you are working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this conversation. Funny how focused and serious you become when it is your work being criticized isn't it? Show me where I was not as focused and series in your thread. No, really. Lets do this and get it out of the way so perhaps one day you'll get a glimpse how you warp things to fit your desires. You seem not to think much about giving me a long list of other theories that I have to explain with my work Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects? , but such requirements don't apply to you. Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory? I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient temperature as a source of usable power. This has already been proved as impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics You need to learn the difference between theory and interpretation. Furthermore, please read the Wikipedia page to see a well accepted 2nd law quote, by Physicist P.W. Bridgman, There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child. You are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself for questioning the establishment. LOL, are you kidding me? Is this really Dave the Aether theory guy, lol. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. Sorry, you are the one with the Aether theory. I make no such claims. :-) No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in an Aether theory. No offense, but at the moment I think your theory is a total waste of bandwidth, since even the wikiwizzes know that what you want to do is impossible. Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can charge a capacitor Dave. BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Just trying to help you brother, as several other people here. Are you actually admitting that you wouldn't even read my work if I did work out a complete comparison between the Aether Physics Model and all known physics theories? This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict. People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My primary focus is on designing a so-called free energy machine based on magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics. Talk about a hypocrite! You have this wild-eyed concept of breaking known laws of physics and you haven't even worked out the math, yet. No, you are the one with the wide-eyed concept called an Aether theory in the year 2007. First you need to understand the difference between a theory and an interpretation. For example, there are many interpretations to QM, such as MWI. There are a lot of interpretations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have presented a fully quantified Aether (which means I have worked out the math), and also provided new testable physics laws and a fundamentally important electron binding energy equation. Yet, you tell me I have to solve all of the Universe before you will listen, and you want us to listen to your wild dreams? Please show me where I said you have to solve all the universe. One has to wonder how all these fictitious ideas enter your mind. I provided a small list in comparison to what QM has already solved. Can you not comprehend why physicists would want your Aether theory to at least equal QM? Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory? Yes, my theory is based upon real math, your research is based upon dreams. That is not rhetoric, it is a fact. Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects? Apparently you missed the part in high school physics where the relative strengths of the fundamental forces were empirically measured, but nobody could provide a quantified theory to unify those forces. There was this guy, his name was Albert Einstein, and he spent the last half of his life trying to figure out how these forces unified. I solved the problem in just three weeks by taking a closer look at the foundations of physics, itself. It turns out that the forces are easily unified if the right dimensions of charges are used. This is mathematically verified through the experimentally proven Casimir effect. I realize your personal bias against the Aether prevents you from studying my work, but it is properly quantified, referenced, and agrees with empirical data. On the other hand, your dream project has no physical manifestation, no quantification, and it has been proven by the science you have faith in to be impossible, over one hundred years ago. You need to learn the difference between theory and interpretation. You need to learn the difference between reality and dreams. It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child. It is a simple fact that the Aether Physics Model correctly unifies the forces, correctly quantifies a quantum unit of space-time, and correctly predicts all the 1s orbital binding energies for all atoms, unless one has no inclination to check it out [no need to stoop to your level of ad hominem remarks]. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. I make no such claims. :-) You claim to have researched a second law violation. Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can charge a capacitor Dave. You don't need to prove anything to me, I don't care about your work, remember? It is the establishment you need to prove to. Where is the paper accepted by Nature or Science that supports your wild-eyed ideas? When was your Nobel Prize reception party? BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Just trying to help you brother, as several other people here. Thanks, just trying to return the favor, bro. I hope you like my help as much as I like yours. This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict. You are being disingenuous, again. You have absolutely no intention of investigating the Aether Physics Model. If you were truly trying to help me, bro, you would recognize and properly comment on the Unified Force Theory (conspicuously missing from your list), and the Casimir effect as already presented. If you had even tried to read my paper, you would realize the difference between quantum structure and quantum mechanics. What I present is quantum structure, which is something modern physics can't do at all. The Aether Physics Model does not inherently dispute quantum mechanics. The only dispute is in the interpretations given by QM for quantum structure, such as wave/particle duality theory, probability functions as subatomic particles, and force particle theory. Telling me that I need to explain quantum mechanics because I have a theory for quantum structure is like saying you have to break the first law of thermodynamics if you plan to break the second law. It is completely senseless and shows a complete lack of understanding of my physics contribution as well as a poor understanding of QM. No, you are the one with the wide-eyed concept called an Aether theory in the year 2007. We are getting to the heart of the matter, at last. You were not interested in a scientific discussion from the beginning. This is all about your prejudice toward the Aether. You never wanted to read the paper, nor did you want to see Aether discussed here, so you tried to the dirty technique of playing mindless cynic in hopes of wearing me down. You have been grasping for any reason you could to derail the discussion, because you didn't want to
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions now vladimir b ginzburg
hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg? seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices! its a shame his website helicola.com is offline - but he has published 3 books, 3 of which are on amazon. seems fun, he even has a thing called the 3 dimensional spiral super-string theory! seems like a fun person! On 14/03/07, nothing of worth was said by two or twenty people fighting amongst themselves
Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
David Thomson wrote: Hi Paul, Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory? Yes, my theory is based upon real math, your research is based upon dreams. That is not rhetoric, it is a fact. Well then it's challenge then, lol. I'll await for your denial or acceptance of the challenge? -- Can the energy contained in ambient temperature charge a capacitor? Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects? Apparently you missed the part in high school physics where the relative strengths of the fundamental forces were empirically measured, but nobody could provide a quantified theory to unify those forces. There was this guy, his name was Albert Einstein, and he spent the last half of his life trying to figure out how these forces unified. I solved the problem in just three weeks by taking a closer look at the foundations of physics, itself. It turns out that the forces are easily unified if the right dimensions of charges are used. This is mathematically verified through the experimentally proven Casimir effect. Talk talk talk. Sorry brother, the physics community will continue to ignore you until your Aether theory can at least predict everything QM can predict. I realize your personal bias against the Aether prevents you from studying my work, but it is properly quantified, referenced, and agrees with empirical data. No, your lack of claims, and as of recent your fuzzy logic mentality. On the other hand, your dream project has no physical manifestation, no quantification, and it has been proven by the science you have faith in to be impossible, over one hundred years ago. Lets make a little bet that ambient temperature can charge a capacitor. You need to learn the difference between reality and dreams. Please, stop the ad hominem remarks Dave. That's just one too many. It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child. It is a simple fact that the Aether Physics Model correctly unifies the forces, correctly quantifies a quantum unit of space-time, and correctly predicts all the 1s orbital binding energies for all atoms, unless one has no inclination to check it out [no need to stoop to your level of ad hominem remarks]. You just don't get it. Can you Aether theory even predict the single electron double slit experiment? Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. I make no such claims. :-) You claim to have researched a second law violation. You're truly imagining things. Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can charge a capacitor Dave. You don't need to prove anything to me, I don't care about your work LOL, big talk, no action? It is the establishment you need to prove to. Where is the paper accepted by Nature or Science that supports your wild-eyed ideas? When was your Nobel Prize reception party? What wild-eyed idea? One can only believe after all your talk that you believe thermal noise cannot charge a capacitor, lol? This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict. You are being disingenuous, again. You have absolutely no intention of investigating the Aether Physics Model. You cannot even understand or admit the basic concept that you at least need to claim your Aether theory predicts everything QM can predict. The Aether Physics Model does not inherently dispute quantum mechanics. The only dispute is in the interpretations given by QM for quantum structure, such as wave/particle duality theory, probability functions as subatomic particles, and force particle theory. Telling me that I need to explain quantum mechanics because I have a theory for quantum structure is like saying you have to break the first law of thermodynamics if you plan to break the second law. It is completely senseless and shows a complete lack of understanding of my physics contribution as well as a poor understanding of QM. What's senseless is even thinking your Aether theory is really a QM interpretation, LOL. Are you saying your Aether theory is really a QM interpretation? I'll ask you again ... What's your QM knowledge? ... Can you do QM mathematics? No, you are the
Re: [Vo]: Earthquake in NE Ohio
In reply to Harvey Norris's message of Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:45:46 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Loud Explosion effect similar to hypothesized scalar interferometry. Ravenna(Portage Co Ohio) Military arsenal near epicenter; Folks near center not experience shock wave but outwards from center shock wave evident at 3.6 on Richter scale. [snip] I suspect this may actually have been a meteorite strike. As they come through the atmosphere at supersonic speeds they should create a huge sonic boom, followed by a small Earthquake as they impact. The same thing happened where I live a couple of years ago. They reported a tremor of 2.5 on the Richter scale in the news, but no one mentioned the meteorite. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Aether Theory
Paul and David posted Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything? If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another thread? Are you telling me what to do? Would you like me to tell you what to do? Please take a look at what you replied to. Both of my statements were questions. My two questions did not tell you what to do. Does one of you have a website about the Aether? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
