RE: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury

[Mark Iverson]

Ed:

Although a significant proportion of the wealthy and powerful are jewish (and 
they probably worked
hard and smart to get there), I think you could have left the religious 
background out of your
statement and it still would have been accurate...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury

Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been 
safe anywhere in the
world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and well 
connected to the
Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US.  Besides, 
his family was also
at risk.  He took the only rational path.

Ed
On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:

> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>> I don't know why he didn't run.
> He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by 
> their very definition.
> It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than 
> acknowledge the corruption within the system.
>

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.9/2229 - Release Date: 07/11/09 
05:57:00

RE: [Vo]:motor mix heavy water cement and polymer heavy water mix

[Michael Foster]

Fumed silica, an inexpensive commercial product, is supposed to have particles 
of between 4 and 50 nanometers. It's very strange stuff, forming a gel with 
common liquids, including water. Whether the material would be useful for this 
type of experiment, I have no idea. 

I've often wondered if palladium or nickel vapor deposited on fumed silica 
would make for an interesting Arata type experiment. A teaspoon of fumed silica 
is said to have the surface area of a tennis court.

--- On Mon, 7/13/09, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Jones Beene 
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:motor mix heavy water cement and polymer heavy water mix
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 8:43 PM
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, 
> 
>    
> 
> There are several
> companies that specialize in nano-powders. Actually dozens
> - 
> 
>    
> 
> Rather than waste time
> with mundane materials which have no history of an anomaly
> with heavy water,
> why not at least try something like a nanopowder of
> titantium,  palladium (Arata),
> rhodium, nickel, or uranium ? All of these have a history
> of reported anomalies.
> Here are a few suppliers 
> 
>    
> 
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/nanomaterials/nanopowders.html
> 
> 
> http://www.americanelements.co.uk/Submicron_nano_powders.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.mknano.com/#quantum
> 
> 
>    
> 
> …etc. However –
> my advice is to seek materials with an average particle
> size below the Forster
> radius – 10 nm. These cost much more, but a gram or
> less is adequate for
> testing. 
> 
>    
> 
> Jones 
> 
>    
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
>  
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> I made some mortor mix with heavy
> water.  I then stimulated the
> mix with a signal generator.
> 
> No anamalous energy was detected. It looked like regular
> concrete.
> 
> 
> 
> I made a mix of polymer (the kind used in water treatment)
> and heavy
> water.  I then stimulated the mixture with
> 
> a signal generator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No anamlaous energy was detected..
> 
> 
> 
> Frank Z 
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Good Credit
> Score is 700 or Above. See
> yours in just 2 easy steps!  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Vo]:motor mix heavy water cement and polymer heavy water mix

[Jones Beene]

Frank,

 

There are several companies that specialize in nano-powders. Actually dozens
-

 

Rather than waste time with mundane materials which have no history of an
anomaly with heavy water, why not at least try something like a nanopowder
of titantium,  palladium (Arata), rhodium, nickel, or uranium ? All of these
have a history of reported anomalies. Here are a few suppliers

 

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/nanomaterials/nanopowders.html

http://www.americanelements.co.uk/Submicron_nano_powders.htm

http://www.mknano.com/#quantum

 

.etc. However - my advice is to seek materials with an average particle size
below the Forster radius - 10 nm. These cost much more, but a gram or less
is adequate for testing.

 

Jones

 

 

From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 

 

I made some mortor mix with heavy water.  I then stimulated the mix with a
signal generator.
No anamalous energy was detected. It looked like regular concrete.

I made a mix of polymer (the kind used in water treatment) and heavy water.
I then stimulated the mixture with
a signal generator.


No anamlaous energy was detected.

Frank Z

 

  _  

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See
  yours in just 2 easy steps! 

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Horace Heffner]

Correction:

I wrote: "I could be wrong, but I get the impression he has other  
fish to fry."


That should be: "As usual, I'm probably wrong, but ... ".

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO

[John Berry]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:22 PM, OrionWorks wrote:

> John,
>
> You have stated:
>
> > I saw this and then read his comment, so I knew
> > what he was talking about and I had the same objection,
> > this disproves the person claiming his 10 year old faked it.
>
> There are many prosaic reasons why a glowing "ring" would begin to
> fade out as this alleged UFO appears to ascend into a bank of clouds.
> Who is not aware of the phenomenon where a flashlight as its
> directional beam points farther away from the viewpoint of the
> observer naturally begins to fade in intensity.


That is plainly not what is occurring.

>
>
> ...and
>
> > Also the camera is moving quite a lot, a reflection would
> > move with the observer not remain stationary in the
> > background.
>
> This analysis makes no sense. It's obvious the camera is jiggling
> about, but not in back and forth movements in relationship to the
> ground as your conjecture seems to be based on.


No, my conjecture is based on side to side wiggle.
Go to a window, look at a reflection of a light and think of it as a ufo in
the distance.
Then jiggle your head a little.
The UFO zooms over the background with each little movement.
Plainly the camera is not being held very still but even a slight jiggle
sends the UFO moving in a readily observible way.


>
> And finally, your comment:
>
> > The person claiming it was hoaxed IS himself a hoaxer.
>
> ... and at this point I realize this is just all getting too silly.
>
> What is your point, John? Actually, what's the "point" you conjecture
> I have missed? I'm baffled. Is it your conjecture that I refuse
> consider the possibility that this a real UFO?


I said I think it's probably CGI.
My point is I have one is that I can't understand why anyone can possibly
fail to see the errors in the claims made in the article.

Or are you implying
> that I still believe that this incident could still be a real UFO,
> despite what the kid's father has to say on the subject?


I mean no offense to you at all but I am starting to wonder if I am speaking
(well, typing) english.

I have no argument with people who believe it's real or which those that
believe it is a hoax.

 I do have an argument with anyone that can fail to see what is just poorly
done debunking and take it hook line and sinker.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that I should make a video of what a
reflection looks like just so people can grasp the obvious.

What is equally amazing to me is why on youtube and now you too (again, no
offense intended) can fail to understand me when I say "I believe it is
faked with CGI probably but definitely NOT a reflection" and yet can accuse
me of wanting to believe it is real!


>
> After viewing and listening to this video countless times, after
> listening to the voice of child and what appears to be the voice of
> the mother in the background who is obviously enjoying playing along
> with her children, it seems pretty obvious to me that everyone was
> having a bang up of a time. Unexpected creativity, the sudden magic of
> the moment is wonderful play! Why is this so difficult for anyone to
> grasp?
>

What is so hard to grasp with "It is simply not possible for that to be a
reflection".
It should be immediatly obvious, and once it has been mentioned by Robin and
myself surely a look in a pane of glass would be the natural next step
before replying.

Also how was anyone able to misunderstand Robin? He was clearly pointing out
the exact same thing.

And then we have the father's subsequent Denver post article,


And how do we know he is the father?

>
> his retelling of what his wonderfully creative kids did one day on the
> spur of the moment, the subsequent posting of their creation out on
> You-Tube and the unexpected surprise of countless individuals and UFO
> organizations refusing to accept that this was mere child's play. And
> then you are giving me the impression that you as well appear to
> dismiss the father's account.


Yes, based on it being impossible and there being no evidence that he is the
father, just a writer wanting to promote his book and website.


> I think these kids are laughing their
> heads off, and rightly so as they teach their parents, us old timers,
> a valuable lesson about the chameleon-like nature of the Internet:
> "The net of a thousand lies!" What a hoot!


Yeah, well you must use LOGIC not just believing everything you read to sort
through the lies.

Re: [Vo]:UFOs

[OrionWorks]

Hi Mike,

> Instead of speculating about possibly-fake photos, try explaining the "crop
> circles". I have the book by Steve and Karen Alexander, which contains over
> 100 high quality aerial and ground photographs from England and other
> countries. There are links to studies of the nature and details of the
> changes induced in the plants to produce the images. Many of the designs are
> far too complex and detailed to be produced by plank-and-stomp pranksters.
> These are regularly reported to be created overnight.
>
> The designs are imprinted on standing crops. Remember Arthur Clarke's
> suggestion that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear magical.
>
> Whoever created them is technically adept beyond current human technology
> and has a remarkable aesthetic sense. Perhaps that are calling cards, hoping
> that someone is home.
>
> Mike Carrell

They came.

They knocked on our door. We pretended nobody was home.

They got the hint.

They left.

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

Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO

[OrionWorks]

John,

You have stated:

> I saw this and then read his comment, so I knew
> what he was talking about and I had the same objection,
> this disproves the person claiming his 10 year old faked it.

There are many prosaic reasons why a glowing "ring" would begin to
fade out as this alleged UFO appears to ascend into a bank of clouds.
Who is not aware of the phenomenon where a flashlight as its
directional beam points farther away from the viewpoint of the
observer naturally begins to fade in intensity.

...and

> Also the camera is moving quite a lot, a reflection would
> move with the observer not remain stationary in the
> background.

This analysis makes no sense. It's obvious the camera is jiggling
about, but not in back and forth movements in relationship to the
ground as your conjecture seems to be based on.

And finally, your comment:

> The person claiming it was hoaxed IS himself a hoaxer.

... and at this point I realize this is just all getting too silly.

What is your point, John? Actually, what's the "point" you conjecture
I have missed? I'm baffled. Is it your conjecture that I refuse
consider the possibility that this a real UFO? Or are you implying
that I still believe that this incident could still be a real UFO,
despite what the kid's father has to say on the subject?

After viewing and listening to this video countless times, after
listening to the voice of child and what appears to be the voice of
the mother in the background who is obviously enjoying playing along
with her children, it seems pretty obvious to me that everyone was
having a bang up of a time. Unexpected creativity, the sudden magic of
the moment is wonderful play! Why is this so difficult for anyone to
grasp? And then we have the father's subsequent Denver post article,
his retelling of what his wonderfully creative kids did one day on the
spur of the moment, the subsequent posting of their creation out on
You-Tube and the unexpected surprise of countless individuals and UFO
organizations refusing to accept that this was mere child's play. And
then you are giving me the impression that you as well appear to
dismiss the father's account. I think these kids are laughing their
heads off, and rightly so as they teach their parents, us old timers,
a valuable lesson about the chameleon-like nature of the Internet:
"The net of a thousand lies!" What a hoot!

FWIW, I've been attending informal UFO pot-luck gatherings in the
Milwaukee area for over fifteen years. I've had the privilege to
listening to authors like Mr. Schmitt discuss in gritty detail much of
the research his team of investigators have slowly uncovered over the
many years concerning the infamous Roswell incident of 1947. Despite
fifteen years of attendance I'm sure I still only know a small portion
of the entire story. It's been interesting listening to the accounts,
the many adventures these investigators have encountered along the
way. Their adventures have included many false leads. Some false leads
were due to natural ignorance and prosaic circumstances. But other
false leads appear to have been deliberately initiated with an
objective to obfuscating the pursuit of additional information. Any
UFO investigator worth their salt has to learn pretty quickly how to
read the signs that they are possibly being lead on a wild goose
chase. They had better learn to read such indicators if they wish to
stay focused on the task at hand, least they themselves and their work
becomes just another contribution to "... the net of a thousand lies."

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

Re: [Vo]:UFOs

[Mike Carrell]

Instead of speculating about possibly-fake photos, try explaining the "crop 
circles". I have the book by Steve and Karen Alexander, which contains over 
100 high quality aerial and ground photographs from England and other 
countries. There are links to studies of the nature and details of the 
changes induced in the plants to produce the images. Many of the designs are 
far too complex and detailed to be produced by plank-and-stomp pranksters. 
These are regularly reported to be created overnight.


The designs are imprinted on standing crops. Remember Arthur Clarke's 
suggestion that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear magical.


Whoever created them is technically adept beyond current human technology 
and has a remarkable aesthetic sense. Perhaps that are calling cards, hoping 
that someone is home.


Mike Carrell 

[Vo]:motor mix heavy water cement and polymer heavy water mix

[fznidarsic]

I made some mortor mix with heavy water.? I then stimulated the mix with a 
signal generator.
No anamalous energy was detected. It looked like regular concrete.

I made a mix of polymer (the kind used in water treatment) and heavy water.? I 
then stimulated the mixture with
a signal generator.


No anamlaous energy was detected.

Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO

[John Berry]

You miss the point though.Personally to me it looks fake, probably because I
am not used to seeing glowing plasma ring UFO's, and possibly because
something didn't fit (for example no glow on clouds that I recall seeing).

There is a strong bias which requires extraordinary proof to "prove"
something extraordinary (do we need proof, can't we just find evidence and
keep an open belief system of "maybe true?")
And yet the most flimsy and faulty "weather balloon" or "led torch" argument
can be used to "disprove" the claim.



On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:17 AM, OrionWorks wrote:

> I just came back from another informal UFO gathering, a Milwaukee
> pot-luck where two speakers shared fascinating information.
>
> The first individual spoke of his extensive research into the 509th
> composite group, the group that was intimately involved in the
> dropping of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What surprised
> him as he assembled and interviewed various participants was how
> varied everyone's memories were of those momentous events. He
> mentioned the fact that recent reunions have not always gone smoothly,
> as certain individuals heatedly contested prior events as claimed by
> others. The writer/researcher's conclusion: Much of what has been
> written and subsequently published in popular books by historians have
> quite naturally been extracted from the testimonies and memories of
> these individuals who themselves can no longer agree amongst
> themselves as to what exactly happened.
>
> Of far more interest to me was the second individual, a UFO
> abductee/experiencer. I thought she was an intelligent and perceptive
> individual. Her abduction descriptions were the typical "abduction"
> scenario: eggs being collected, viewing and interacting with hybrids.
> She was also shown images of horrible global disasters that will
> happen to our planet if we don't mend our ways. This is all standard
> stock footage of the UFO abductee kind. Her experiences are also
> multi-generational in the sense that the abductions are now happening
> to her daughter, and possibly her grandchild as well.
>
> It is not my objective to either prove or disprove the veracity of
> these abduction claims. I will only say that she is among many who
> have experienced remarkably similar events - in the vacuum of
> cross-checking and collaborating with other "abductees" order to makes
> sure everyone gets their "stories" straight.
>
> I will, however, offer some personal eccentric conjecture here in
> that, IMHO, attempts by both believers and debunkers to legitimize (or
> debunk) these abductions experiences as allegedly "real" (or not)
> sometimes seems to miss the mark. I've come to the suspicion that way
> too much effort is being put into legitimizing the experience as
> physical 3-D events, as compared to simply trying to understand and
> comprehend the complexity of the experience itself. I have little
> doubt in my own mind, after hearing testimony after testimony that
> what most of these individuals are experiencing is REALLY being
> experienced. However, to then attempt to legitimize the experiences as
> "physically" real, as having happened in the physical sense, I
> suspect, is doomed to failure because invariably the experiences seem
> to possess unique qualities that strongly indicate (at least to me)
> that the experience is operating in a very different sector of
> reality. We can debate forever what these other realities and/or
> dimensions could possibly be or be comprised of, but that is for
> another time.
>
> And now... back to the present:
>
> Here, we already have disagreement among supposedly observant
> individuals trained in the rigorous techniques of scientific
> investigation and rational deductive thinking within the
> Vort-Collective who cannot agree on whether this alleged UFO video
> footage is "real" or "fake." I must admit that when I first viewed the
> video, it looked "real" to me - even as I puzzled over the fact that
> this was the first "ring" UFO I had ever seen. The ringed UFO also did
> -seem- to fade away as it abruptly ascended into the clouds. But then
> Mr. Blanton had to spoil my creative "reality" by posting the
> follow-up denverpost.com article - and suddenly my perspective on the
> matter, my personal "reality" of the experience shifted into a
> different dimension, a dimension that is the more commonly referenced
> one, the one where you and I can operate in collectively, the reality
> where we are allowed to post emails and converse back and forth within
> in the "physical" sense. The reality I pay my bills in.
>
> In the end, I suspect each and every single one of us will prescribe
> whatever "reality" we personally feel is most important to manifest in
> regards to what actually transpired. It doesn't matter if it was a
> mysterious intelligently operated "ring" originating from a galaxy,
> far far away, or whether it originated from a mysterious sector of the
> universe known as W

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:

There have also been stunning "heat after death" radiographs of Ti  
cathodes taken at BARQ India.  The surfaces were active for  
months.  Search on "radiograph" on LENR- CANR.org.


Note however, that's lukewarm fusion. Not exactly cold. Way more  
reactions than predicted by plasma fusion theory, but basically  
plasma fusion.



It is certainly logical and conventional to call it lukewarm fusion,  
due to the initiating energy.  However, I personally think the  
distinguishing characteristic of cold fusion is a highly distorted  
set of branching ratios.  I think the production of delayed x-rays or  
UV after energy is no longer supplied is also a characteristic of  
cold fusion, and not hot fusion.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:

There have also been stunning "heat after death" radiographs of Ti 
cathodes taken at BARQ India.  The surfaces were active for 
months.  Search on "radiograph" on LENR- CANR.org.


Note however, that's lukewarm fusion. Not exactly cold. Way more 
reactions than predicted by plasma fusion theory, but basically 
plasma fusion. The same can be said for Claytor and the glow 
discharge work. I suppose it is cold fusion insofar as it seems to 
require a metal lattice.


The relevant papers by Rout and Iyengar are listed with the 
autoradiograph images here:


http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan

Also, it isn't heat after death, it is radioactivity, which I gather 
many high energy physicists find more convincing than heat. The late 
Douglas Morrison was so convinced, he freaked out, refused to look, 
and never mentioned the results. See:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GeorgeRthecoldfus.pdf

John Huizenga had a similar reaction when Russ George and I showed 
him the Lautzenhiser results when they first came out, at ICCF-4. In 
old-fashioned lingo you might say he blanched, swallowed his gum, and 
ran. For an old guy he took off with remarkable speed. As far as I 
can tell he never mentioned the subject to anyone. See:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf

There are quite a number of results in the literature that prominent 
skeptics are aware of but refuse to acknowledge. A recent example is 
the SRI results that Richard Garwin endorsed in his report to the 
Pentagon and then lied about on CBS "60 Minutes." See:


http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#CBS60minutes

http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Horace Heffner]

Oh, I forgot this question.


On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Bremsstrahlung radiation has been mentioned. My understanding is  
that it's been detected. Enough?


There has been evidence of emissions in the low energy x-rays or high  
energy UV range. I personally don't think this is Bremsstrahlung  
though.  Even the SPAWAR experiments showed some evidence of x-rays  
in the CR-39, if I recall.   There have also been stunning "heat  
after death" radiographs of Ti cathodes taken at BARQ India.  The  
surfaces were active for months.  Search on "radiograph" on LENR- 
CANR.org.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

How much glory and, face it, money, is there in reproducing an 
experiment and confirming it?


In the case of cold fusion these values are negative. Instead of 
glory, you get the frozen boot (as the Russians call it). You don't 
get money; you pay it, in lost income. Sometimes 100% of income.



Takahashi's theory wasn't published yesterday. Where are the 
specific critiques, published?


As far as I know, only a few papers mention Takahashi, such as Miura. 
Although I do not follow theory publications closely. Paying no 
attention to content, you can find Miura and some others at LENR-CANR 
with a search for Takahashi's keywords such as "tetrahedral 
symmetric" or search for one of his titles in the footnotes of other papers.


If there were others I could usually find them among the papers on my 
disk, although many are in image format so they do not index. I use 
dtSearch Ver. 7.25 for this purpose, with a search request such as:


tetrahedral w/25 symmetric

I find, for example, a reference in the Storms book, the 
aforementioned Miura paper, Ohta, and a review by Dolan.




If there were critiques, then presumably Takahashi would reply.


I would not count on that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 11:59 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote:


All said, I see the gaping hole in Takahashi's theory being the
orders of magnitude lack of detectable high energy alphas.   Perhaps
it is just a calculation error on my part.  It wouldn't be the first
time such a thing has happened.  8^)


Sure. But Takahashi has been working on this since the early 1990s.  
Has he addressed the problem?



I could be wrong, but I get the impression he has other fish to fry.   
He has some interest in looking at neutron energies from SPAWAR type  
co-deposited films, for example.  I think there is today across the  
board more interest in the SPAWAR experiments than pursuing theories,  
because the SPAWAR experiments are (1) highly repeatable, (2)  
comparatively inexpensive, and (3) provide results that are very  
difficult to sidestep with spurious arguments.  Theories or working  
hypotheses are a dime a dozen.  I even have one of my own:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf


Precisely because it is so easy to make mistakes, to fail to  
consider this or that, I wouldn't consider a single calculation, by  
a single person, to be conclusive, no matter how good it looks.



Each person has to decide where to spend his time and money.  In the  
case of CF research today, it truly is the researcher's own time and  
own money.





I'm getting the feeling that there is a propensity for trying to be  
first with some idea, and so more energy goes into generating new  
theories than in specifically and in detail criticizing existing  
ones. Same with experimental work.


How much glory and, face it, money, is there in reproducing an  
experiment and confirming it? Especially an experiment that leaves  
something to be desired, i.e., only a *little* extra energy is  
reliable, or it's not even reliable but it still statistically very  
significant, or there is only a *little* neutron radiation?



It is well known that the branching ratios for CF are very different  
from hot fusion. You do not see neutrons or energetic particles  
except in token amounts, orders of magnitude less than required by  
the enthalpy.  That has been well known for 20 years.





So instead of confirming what's been done, for twenty years cold  
fusion researchers kept trying to *improve* the work. Thus the  
famous "they are all over the map" comments from DoE reviews, etc.



That's a chicken and egg problem.  As long as there is insufficient  
(or no) funding, automatic patent application rejection, and academic  
stigma, rigorous exploration of the field will not occur.   If people  
fund their own research they will do their own thing.





Takahashi's theory wasn't published yesterday. Where are the  
specific critiques, published? If there were critiques, then  
presumably Takahashi would reply.



I don't know the history of the dialog on this.  It's pretty old  
stuff.  My comments were based on your comments.  I do know that the  
community has almost as many theories as people, and each individual  
tends to stick to his own views despite criticism.  This is in part  
due to the fact *every* theory has gaping holes in it.  I thus don't  
see Takahashi's old theory as special in that regard.  He is a  
venerable scientist.  I wouldn't personally want to make a point of  
drawing comment out of him on something like that through untimely  
criticism.



Others would reply. Experiments would be designed to test the  
theories, including the theories behind the criticism. What happens  
if you take an alpha source and immerse it in heavy water with a  
piece of CR-39 next to it? What happens if you generate hot alphas  
and let them impact some simulation of the electrolytic environment?


Bremsstrahlung radiation has been mentioned. My understanding is  
that it's been detected. Enough? That's another question. I'm  
suspicious of purely theoretical calculations, there are too many  
ways they can go wrong. Sure, it's a guide, but such should always  
be confirmed.


Yes, but who is paying for it?



I do agree with one point. If hot alphas at 23.8 MeV are generated,  
they should then behave like any other hot alphas.


Yes, that's my assumption.  The theory implies no new science required.


On the other hand, I don't, offhand, know of a way of generating  
alphas at that energy in a simulated environment, i.e., simulating  
actual generation by Be-8 decay within a metal lattice instead of  
being accelerated outside of that, there might indeed be phenomena  
that we don't see in a plasma or vacuum environment. Still, if it  
hasn't been studied, it should be!


But what are the priorities for dollars?

It's the deafening silence regarding detailed comment on existing  
theories that strikes me.


If they are all flawed, why waste time beating the dead horses?  I  
think at this time in the field experimentation is key, especially  
experimentation in areas that are known t

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Edmund Storms]

On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 11:59 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote:


All said, I see the gaping hole in Takahashi's theory being the
orders of magnitude lack of detectable high energy alphas.   Perhaps
it is just a calculation error on my part.  It wouldn't be the first
time such a thing has happened.  8^)



It's the deafening silence regarding detailed comment on existing  
theories that strikes me.


Actually, a great deal of comment has been undertaken by the CMNS chat  
group.  This group is made up of people in the field who know a great  
deal about the subject and do not have to be educated. In addition, I  
find that detailed discussion about theory does not go far because  
most of the critique involves assumptions that have not been and  
cannot be supported.  These assumptions are generally unique to the  
theory and are defended to the death by the person proposing the theory.


Ed

Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:59 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote:


All said, I see the gaping hole in Takahashi's theory being the
orders of magnitude lack of detectable high energy alphas.   Perhaps
it is just a calculation error on my part.  It wouldn't be the first
time such a thing has happened.  8^)


Sure. But Takahashi has been working on this since the early 1990s. 
Has he addressed the problem?


Precisely because it is so easy to make mistakes, to fail to consider 
this or that, I wouldn't consider a single calculation, by a single 
person, to be conclusive, no matter how good it looks.


I'm getting the feeling that there is a propensity for trying to be 
first with some idea, and so more energy goes into generating new 
theories than in specifically and in detail criticizing existing 
ones. Same with experimental work.


How much glory and, face it, money, is there in reproducing an 
experiment and confirming it? Especially an experiment that leaves 
something to be desired, i.e., only a *little* extra energy is 
reliable, or it's not even reliable but it still statistically very 
significant, or there is only a *little* neutron radiation?


So instead of confirming what's been done, for twenty years cold 
fusion researchers kept trying to *improve* the work. Thus the famous 
"they are all over the map" comments from DoE reviews, etc.


Takahashi's theory wasn't published yesterday. Where are the specific 
critiques, published? If there were critiques, then presumably 
Takahashi would reply. Others would reply. Experiments would be 
designed to test the theories, including the theories behind the 
criticism. What happens if you take an alpha source and immerse it in 
heavy water with a piece of CR-39 next to it? What happens if you 
generate hot alphas and let them impact some simulation of the 
electrolytic environment?


Bremsstrahlung radiation has been mentioned. My understanding is that 
it's been detected. Enough? That's another question. I'm suspicious 
of purely theoretical calculations, there are too many ways they can 
go wrong. Sure, it's a guide, but such should always be confirmed.


I do agree with one point. If hot alphas at 23.8 MeV are generated, 
they should then behave like any other hot alphas. On the other hand, 
I don't, offhand, know of a way of generating alphas at that energy 
in a simulated environment, i.e., simulating actual generation by 
Be-8 decay within a metal lattice instead of being accelerated 
outside of that, there might indeed be phenomena that we don't see in 
a plasma or vacuum environment. Still, if it hasn't been studied, it should be!


It's the deafening silence regarding detailed comment on existing 
theories that strikes me. 

Re: [Vo]:ZPE energy extraction

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:30 AM, David Jonsson wrote:


On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM,  wrote:
In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:52:55  
-0500:

Hi,
[snip]
>But he provides a video of John Christie of Lutec and his magnetic  
motor.


...Precisely. He's selling the plans to *someone else's* motor! :)


I raised the issue because I wanted to hear how they suppose to  
work and the side effects. I was surprised that they even sold it  
with Google ads.


Air is also full of energy since it is pressurized, equal to 100 kJ/ 
m³, but no one claims that they have devices to extract that  
energy. So how is that ZPE supposed to be used? Are there any other  
methods than frequency transformations?


David


Frequency transformations from antennae potentials are not likely to  
work, because the zero point field (ZPF) oscillations are carried by  
virtual photons, not photons.  The ZPF thus entirely consists of near  
field effects, the kinds of forces experienced between moving  
magnets.  It is not an electromagnetic radiation in the ordinary  
sense.   Ordinary (photon receiving) antennae for EM radiation, and  
EM radiation shielding and focusing concepts,  will not work.  That  
virtual photons differ from photons can most starkly be seen in their  
gravitational characteristics.  It is my theory that, unlike photons,  
virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, and thus the vast  
energy of the ZPF imposes no large gravitational field (corresponding  
to the energy it carries by E = m c^2) on the volume of space it  
occupies, and black holes carry externally observable magnetic  
charges.  See:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf

But that is a diversion from the main point, which is how to utilize  
this oscillating virtual photon field.


Due to most of the ZPF energy being carried in wavelengths smaller  
than an atom, most of the energy is only available to nucleus sized  
structures.  Free energy magnetic motors said to tap the ZPF are thus  
highly suspect in my opinion.  Here is a potential approach to  
tapping the ZPF  using its thermal effect on the nucleus:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf

It requires forming a powerful magnetic pinch (and thus a powerful  
inter-nuclear electron current that carries off the ZPF provided  
nuclear heat) with nuclei that can produce practical effects.


The other approach is to use the Casimir force directly.  This  
requires nano-technology devices.  Here is my attempt at that approach:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO

[OrionWorks]

I just came back from another informal UFO gathering, a Milwaukee
pot-luck where two speakers shared fascinating information.

The first individual spoke of his extensive research into the 509th
composite group, the group that was intimately involved in the
dropping of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What surprised
him as he assembled and interviewed various participants was how
varied everyone's memories were of those momentous events. He
mentioned the fact that recent reunions have not always gone smoothly,
as certain individuals heatedly contested prior events as claimed by
others. The writer/researcher's conclusion: Much of what has been
written and subsequently published in popular books by historians have
quite naturally been extracted from the testimonies and memories of
these individuals who themselves can no longer agree amongst
themselves as to what exactly happened.

Of far more interest to me was the second individual, a UFO
abductee/experiencer. I thought she was an intelligent and perceptive
individual. Her abduction descriptions were the typical "abduction"
scenario: eggs being collected, viewing and interacting with hybrids.
She was also shown images of horrible global disasters that will
happen to our planet if we don't mend our ways. This is all standard
stock footage of the UFO abductee kind. Her experiences are also
multi-generational in the sense that the abductions are now happening
to her daughter, and possibly her grandchild as well.

It is not my objective to either prove or disprove the veracity of
these abduction claims. I will only say that she is among many who
have experienced remarkably similar events - in the vacuum of
cross-checking and collaborating with other "abductees" order to makes
sure everyone gets their "stories" straight.

I will, however, offer some personal eccentric conjecture here in
that, IMHO, attempts by both believers and debunkers to legitimize (or
debunk) these abductions experiences as allegedly "real" (or not)
sometimes seems to miss the mark. I've come to the suspicion that way
too much effort is being put into legitimizing the experience as
physical 3-D events, as compared to simply trying to understand and
comprehend the complexity of the experience itself. I have little
doubt in my own mind, after hearing testimony after testimony that
what most of these individuals are experiencing is REALLY being
experienced. However, to then attempt to legitimize the experiences as
"physically" real, as having happened in the physical sense, I
suspect, is doomed to failure because invariably the experiences seem
to possess unique qualities that strongly indicate (at least to me)
that the experience is operating in a very different sector of
reality. We can debate forever what these other realities and/or
dimensions could possibly be or be comprised of, but that is for
another time.

And now... back to the present:

Here, we already have disagreement among supposedly observant
individuals trained in the rigorous techniques of scientific
investigation and rational deductive thinking within the
Vort-Collective who cannot agree on whether this alleged UFO video
footage is "real" or "fake." I must admit that when I first viewed the
video, it looked "real" to me - even as I puzzled over the fact that
this was the first "ring" UFO I had ever seen. The ringed UFO also did
-seem- to fade away as it abruptly ascended into the clouds. But then
Mr. Blanton had to spoil my creative "reality" by posting the
follow-up denverpost.com article - and suddenly my perspective on the
matter, my personal "reality" of the experience shifted into a
different dimension, a dimension that is the more commonly referenced
one, the one where you and I can operate in collectively, the reality
where we are allowed to post emails and converse back and forth within
in the "physical" sense. The reality I pay my bills in.

In the end, I suspect each and every single one of us will prescribe
whatever "reality" we personally feel is most important to manifest in
regards to what actually transpired. It doesn't matter if it was a
mysterious intelligently operated "ring" originating from a galaxy,
far far away, or whether it originated from a mysterious sector of the
universe known as Wall-Mart. What is more important is the fact that
the experience, its manifestation, has impacted many creatures in
significant ways across our insignificant planet. I think we tend to
lose site of the importance of the "reality" of the experience itself,
particularly how multi-dimensional our personal experiences are. I
suspect that is the true "reality" we actually operate in.

As late author, Jane Robert's, was prone to say many times in her
writings: "You create your own reality."


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

Re: [Vo]:ZPE energy extraction

[David Jonsson]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:52:55 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >But he provides a video of John Christie of Lutec and his magnetic motor.
>
> ...Precisely. He's selling the plans to *someone else's* motor! :)
>
>
I raised the issue because I wanted to hear how they suppose to work and the
side effects. I was surprised that they even sold it with Google ads.

Air is also full of energy since it is pressurized, equal to 100 kJ/m³, but
no one claims that they have devices to extract that energy. So how is that
ZPE supposed to be used? Are there any other methods than frequency
transformations?

David