Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009  
00:03:51 -0400:


>It
>might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
>approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed  
fusion,
>basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions  
that

>facilitate fusion.

What sort of confinement do you have in mind here?


Confinement: restricting the motion of fusible elements such that  
the fusion cross-section is increased over what would be expected  
at the same temperature in free space.


Confinement increases the wavelength size but, by itself, does not  
increase the fusion cross section.  If it did then Bose condensates  
would fuse.


A BEC, even a two molecule BEC, can not be described as simply the  
overlap of individual waveforms, and things do not behave as one  
intuitively might expect.  For simplicity lets just talk particles  
instead of molecules for a moment.  Yes, as relative motion of any  
two particles is reduced to zero in the reference frame of the  
observer, their de Broglie wavelengths increase to infinity, and  
obviously greatly increase their overlap if the centers of charge are  
not co-centered.  This is not sufficient to increase the probability  
of fusion.  What is important is, upon observation and wave function  
collapse, the probability of the two resulting point particles  
(nuclei) being sufficiently close to produce the fusion.  If you  
break the individual wave functions into little cubes of a size  
sufficiently small to produce fusion of two particles within one,  
then as the wave function gets bigger you end up with more cubes  
(i.e. proportional to the wavelength cubed number of cubes) even if  
the wave functions *fully overlap*, i.e. the particles are co-entered.


If, for the sake of argument, each cube has equal probability, i.e.  
upon wave function collapse each particle can be found in any of the  
cubes with the same probability,  then the probability of both  
particles occupying the same cube upon full collapse actually  
*diminishes* with expanded de Broglie wavelength. For example suppose  
you start off with 2^3 = 8 cubes. The probability of fusion in any  
one of the cubes is 1/8^2 = 1/64.  You have 8 cubes, so the overall  
probability is 8*64 = 1/8.  Suppose now you double the wavelength, so  
have 4^3 = 64 cubes.  The probability of fusion in a particular cube  
is 1/64^2 = 1/4096.  The combined probability of fusion, given there  
are 64 cubes is 64 times larger, thus 1/64.  The probability of  
fusion is reduced by a factor of 8 when the de Broglie wavelength is  
doubled (in this highly simplified version that is.)


It gets worse.  The probability could in actuality in all low speed  
cases be very close to zero.  This is because the expected location  
(upon wave function collapse) of particles in combined wave functions  
is co-located with respect to the other particles, i.e. is co- 
dependent. The probability of finding of particle A in a given cube  
is conditional upon where particle B will be found, and vice versa.   
Particles having like charge have low probabilities of being found  
close together.   This co-location affects things like the tendency  
for hydrogen molecules to be of a given barbell shape and size.  You  
might expect that, as the protons are brought closer to each other,  
and the volume of the molecule decreased, the probability of the  
electrons being found between them and thus shielding their Coulomb  
barriers, would grow. Not so.  The electron wave function actually  
thins out between the nuclei and thus increases the repulsion between  
the nuclei, thus restoring the molecular shape.  The probability of  
the electrons jointly being found in the smaller volume between the  
nuclei decreases, and the probability of both being found on opposed  
sides of the nuclei increases. The probabilities are thus co- 
dependent. Similar arguments can be made for nuclei jammed into a  
tetrahedral space (their locations are co-dependent) as well as for  
any electron screening that might occur there.


I suggested a possible means to beat this co-location problem (and  
thus cause fusion) here in 1996.  It is described here:


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


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 5:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08  
-0800:

Hi,

Sorry Horace, no harm intended.



No harm experienced.  No emotional content to my response was  
intended.  Sorry, my writing style is a bit dry and terse, so easily  
misinterpreted.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:35 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Sure. So? Are we running a Find-The-Skeptic game? Look, we already 
know that there are hosts of these pseudo-skeptics.



I do this for practice. It is good to match wits with them a few 
times a year. It is good to keep in practice and keep the arguments 
sharp and up to date. I think I addressed the K40 argument reasonably well.


Okay, I can understand that, I even do it in similar situations.

I have closed that conversation with what I hope is a friendly and 
polite goodbye. Please don't anyone else comment. Let's leave the 
poor blog owner alone.


My basic negative comment is that it was really off-topic there, and 
it just invited trolling from those skeptics. Which then distracted 
completely from the blogger's actual point, which really had nothing 
to do with cold fusion, the poor blog owner indeed


I have to get ready to leave for Rome. I always pack at the last 
minute, which drives my wife crazy. She packs a week in advance. 
Naturally, I always forget my toothbrush, spare glasses, critical 
papers, the schedule, the address I am supposed to go to, etc. Once 
I forgot to go the airport until the next day (coming back, fortunately).


Good luck in Rome! 

RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:37 PM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt, it's a
thankless job.  I've enjoyed reading about your adventures on that battle
front. ;-)


Thanks. I did what I could, and not more than that! I was not a cold 
fusion single-purpose-account, as was Pcarbonn, so, in theory, I was 
less vulnerable, and when my efforts to promote fair treatment on 
Wikipedia were about situations where I wasn't personally involved, I 
was largely successful. However, in pursuit of one of those cases, I 
came across cold fusion and was motivated to do the research, 
particularly since I had sufficient background to understand the 
issues. From a skeptical position, I became convinced that not only 
was cold fusion real, but that the scientific consensus was shifting 
and it was no longer accurate to say, baldly, that cold fusion was 
rejected by mainstream science. And I started working on the article, 
to move it toward compliance with Wikipedia guidelines (which are 
actually excellent, it's the actual practice which is the problem). 
Because I was now involved, and when "they" came after me, I was not 
so able to defend myself, and insufficient support mobilized, and I 
was subject to classic political hazards that I well understand. But 
understanding isn't always enough!


I've concluded that my work on Wikipedia is done, as far as what I 
might do on the site itself; I don't expect to return when my block 
expires; if I do anything with Wikipedia, it will be toward 
facilitating the organization of Wikipedia editors off-wiki, which is 
what is needed to fix the serious governance problems (that are 
actually widely recognized in the community, though most seem to be 
in despair about the possibility of fixing them). I announced, before 
I was blocked, that I was beginning a cold fusion project kit 
company, which makes me a conflict-of-interest editor in any case.


However, if anyone is interested in working on the Wikipedia article, 
I could offer advice, privately. I do understand how to accomplish 
what is needed, and was on my way to doing it. I wasn't exactly 
blocked, in the end, for cold fusion work, I was blocked because I 
challenged probably the most effective and powerful of the cabals 
that, to some degree, run Wikipedia the way they like it, and against 
true consensus; because of how they operate and the handful of 
administrators who are involved, including one who is very highly 
privileged, and by piling in to any discussion, they can make it look 
like they represent the community. But that's not stable and doesn't 
survive close scrutiny; nevertheless, they were able to mass 
sufficient support to result in appearances that led to my block.


However, the administrator who had originally banned me from the cold 
fusion article lost his tools over his insistence on his right to 
declare and enforce the ban, and the nature of the cabal and those I 
identified with it was largely exposed, and the positions that they 
vigorously argued in the case that led to my ban and the removal of 
administrative tools from that administrator are being explicitly 
rejected by the community. So in a certain sense, I was quite 
successful. I don't believe that I was originally banned from Cold 
fusion because of my specific work there; rather I was banned because 
of an intention to ban me that arose before I was ever involved with 
the article. I was a threat to their power, and had frustrated them a 
number of times by compiling and presenting evidence.



Regarding the latest installment of the Rothwell/Swartz's saga, if you think
you can inspire others (including Mr. Rothwell) into embarking on such
multi-headed editing project, more power to you.


Thanks. Rothwell's participation isn't required, though, of course, 
he will be, I'm sure, fully welcome and will decide how and to what 
degree he would cooperate. The last thing I'd want to do would be to 
create a burden for him that he doesn't willingly take on. So I won't. 

Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Steve, you were unable to see Fleischmann, which is certainly unfortunate.
> However, how was his wife? Did she seem stable, or would you suspect that
> she was under duress or undue influence, based on your observation of her?
>

She's fine, for goodness sake. I have been in contact. Don't get worked up
about this. Martin has been sick for some time. He was probably just too
tired to see Steve.

Steve should not report this kind of thing, in my opinion. It is not
anyone's business. Especially not medical treatment. It is bad enough being
old.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:37 PM 10/2/2009, you wrote:

Dardik's Team Blocks Reporter's Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann
by Steven B. Krivit


Sad and worrisome, to be sure, but there is little alternative but to 
trust Fleischmann's wife, who clearly supported the isolation. I hope 
Fleischmann is well enough to make it to Rome and perhaps Steve will 
be able to meet with him there.


Steve, you were unable to see Fleischmann, which is certainly 
unfortunate. However, how was his wife? Did she seem stable, or would 
you suspect that she was under duress or undue influence, based on 
your observation of her?


Sometimes when there is a suspicion of someone taking advantage of 
older people, local authorities, if informed, will arrange a visit to 
investigate. On the one hand, it's quite reasonable to think that 
Fleischmann might be in a condition that his wife would not want 
visitors, and she might ask for help in that, so the man you met 
might have indeed been carrying out her wishes, but there are other 
possibilities. What was your sense? You were there.

Re: [Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Sure. So? Are we running a Find-The-Skeptic game? Look, we already know that
> there are hosts of these pseudo-skeptics.


I do this for practice. It is good to match wits with them a few times a
year. It is good to keep in practice and keep the arguments sharp and up to
date. I think I addressed the K40 argument reasonably well.

I have closed that conversation with what I hope is a friendly and polite
goodbye. Please don't anyone else comment. Let's leave the poor blog owner
alone.

I have to get ready to leave for Rome. I always pack at the last minute,
which drives my wife crazy. She packs a week in advance. Naturally, I always
forget my toothbrush, spare glasses, critical papers, the schedule, the
address I am supposed to go to, etc. Once I forgot to go the airport until
the next day (coming back, fortunately).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:18 PM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:

>It
>might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation
>approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion,
>basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that
>facilitate fusion.

What sort of confinement do you have in mind here?


Confinement: restricting the motion of fusible elements such that the 
fusion cross-section is increased over what would be expected at the 
same temperature in free space. Palladium, if Takahashi is correct, 
appears to function by restricting the motion of deuterium molecules 
so that the probability is enhanced of Tetrahedral Symmetric 
Condensate formation, which begins with a specific spatial 
relationship of two deuterium molecules (i.e., four deuterons, 
including four electrons), a relationship which we can imagine is 
encouraged by cubic confinement, the TSC being the most efficient 
packing; the reaction rate is then limited by the probability of 
getting two D2 molecules into a single cubic lattice position, which 
is -- fortunately! -- quite low. Proteins can create just about any 
necessary spatial configuration and thus catalyze many chemical 
reactions; I see no theoretical reason why proteins could not create 
a similar situation to the lattice; one or more of the atoms involved 
might be bound to the protein.


All I'm saying is that if metal lattice catalyzed cold fusion is 
possible, then it would not be surprising to find that a protein can 
man age it, and if a protein can manage it, and if some survival 
advantage could exist for cells that pull off a LENR trick, then it 
would also not be surprising to find cells which can do it. While I'd 
not assign a high probability to this, ab initio and without 
evidence, it does mean to me that Vyosotskii's work should not be 
rejected out of hand, nor should the other reports of biological 
transmutations. *Someone* should investigate and attempt to reproduce 
Vyosotskii and perhaps some of the other, older, transmutation 
experiments, about which I know less. 

Re: [Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:32 PM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
[quoting Jed Rothwell]
> If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder 
of what they

> are like:
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940


I'm trying to figure out why the original author mentioned cold 
fusion. The connection with his topic was totally unclear. He says 
nothing about cold fusion that shows anything more than the scantiest 
knowledge of the science, either from a skeptical or a supportive 
point of view. His topic is medicine. Reading some of his other 
material, the guy is quite a bit less than impressive as a writer.


What was called for there was a simple pointer to a good recent 
review of the field, pretty much like your original post (except you 
didn't point to a single review, but to your entire collection. Who 
is going to read that collectimay be another story.


Nobody there was discussing cold fusion until you showed up. However, 
your post attracted daedalus2u . If 
you follow the link, the writer doesn't seem to be the soul of 
balanced sobriety. The guy is smart enough to read papers you cite 
and figure out hypothetical problems with them, which he then 
confidently asserts as the probably explanation. I've seen enough of 
these bloggers to know that they are unaware of the depth of the 
literature, they *assume* that it is all shallow, shoddy work. The 
fact is that with any report, one can make up ("hypothesize") 
possible causes of artifact that were not addressed in the report. 
For him to respond to a solid review of the field, though, he'd have 
to do a lot more work.


Tritium is not a major product of LENR. Helium is. Tritium is nice 
because it's easier to measure, but helium, because of the solid 
correlation with excess heat, validates the heat measurements. And, 
of course, the heat measurements validate the helium; any artifact 
would have to somehow cause the measured excess heat to track the 
measured helium. The skeptic's criticism of the tritium measurement 
*in that one paper* is interesting, if true (I certainly haven't 
verified what he asserts about potassium), but ...


You encountered, there, many stock arguments and a few more cogent 
arguments, but none of them solidly based. These discussions, when 
they go on beyond a point, don't convince anyone of anything, I'd 
say, having done a fair amount of this in other fields. It would be 
useful to have a well-writtenFAQ that addresses all the standard 
criticisms about cold fusion, cite it, and leave, or only answer 
*new* criticisms -- and then arrange that they be added to the FAQ, 
congratulating the author on their original thinking!


Why don't we do that, Jed? I'd love to help. I'm going to go to that 
discussion and pick out the themes, and bring them back here. Instead 
of writing that stuff over and over, how about putting together a 
document that represents the best thinking on the topic, coherently 
expressed. You're an excellent writer, but you are, to some extent, 
wasting your time repeating the same things over and over in various 
venues. It's enough if, in these places where cold fusion is 
mentioned, you, or someone, points to the real information; let the 
skeptics rant and rave all they want, and they will, for quite some 
time. They are like frogs in the pot being brought to a boil, 
croaking and complaining, but not jumping out of the trap they are in.


They pretend to be interested in science, but when they say "call us 
when you have a car that runs by cold fusion," we can know that they 
don't care at all about science, for that is not a scientific 
position at all; cold fusion could be real and totally impractical 
for running a car.


The world is full of ignorant people; indeed, all of us are ignorant 
of much. It's enough to, when the opportunity presents, convey the 
message clearly, but more than that is not only not necessary, it 
actually hardens opposition, for few like to be exposed as ignorant. 
Within a year, Jed, I'd like you to be able to say, for $x, you can 
buy a kit to replicate a cold fusion experiment and detect nuclear 
radiation, it's been demonstrated by N people (and, in a bit more 
time, published here and there) and you'd be more than welcome to 
show how it's fake. Please, try, or point to someone who has.


And, frankly, I don't care what they might say in response. It 
doesn't matter what they say. It matters what the people who *do* try 
say, especially if many of them are young.



> Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that this person absolutely
> rejects any paper not published in a U.S. peer-reviewed journal. 
He will not

> even glance at a paper in a Japanese, Italian or Indian journal. He rejects
> anything published in an electrochemical journal:
>
> "If you don't get the fact that it's meaningless and irrelevant unless it's
> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then you're quite hopeless."
>
> He does not cons

Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Steven Krivit wrote:
> *Dardik's Team Blocks Reporter’s Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann 
> *by Steven B. Krivit
>  

[ rest snipped ]

This sounds like rather dreadful news regarding Fleischman.

A related question:  Is there any evidence from folks not associated
with Dardik that the "superwave" approach is useful for CF?

RE: [Vo]:Fleischmann

[Jones Beene]

Steve

 

*  According to Quackwatch
  , "the revocation
proceeding was initiated by Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a former TV
investigative reporter."

 

 

 

This is not a defense of Dardik. 

 

But "Quackwatch" is a little bit like letting the fox watch the hen house.

 

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

 

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:21:08 -0800:
Hi,

Sorry Horace, no harm intended.

[snip]
>
>On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> It's because CF started with lattice based
>> reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based  
>> (AFAIK)- in fact I
>> doubt that anyone other than me has even considered that it might  
>> not need to be
>> lattice based.
>
>Not true.  For example, see:
>
>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GlowExper.pdf
>
>page 7 and following.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

HI Abd,

You are not the first to suggest that my "two cents" may be worth even less.

First of all, I just want to be clear on the fact that I have been impressed
by the amount of tireless work you have doing over in the Wiki thicket
trying to improve the flow of accurate information. No doubt, it's a
thankless job.  I've enjoyed reading about your adventures on that battle
front. ;-)

Regarding the latest installment of the Rothwell/Swartz's saga, if you think
you can inspire others (including Mr. Rothwell) into embarking on such
multi-headed editing project, more power to you.

I believe we are both in agreement on the point that it is entirely up to
Mr. Rothwell. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

I never meant to imply in any form, shape, or manner that I speak for Mr.
Rothwell.

I also did not say nor did I mean to imply that Jed doesn't have a cabal of
assistants who occasionally help him.

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

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers with hyperlinks only

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:19 PM 10/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

The usefulness of lenr-canr.org would increase somewhat if the 
bibliography included useful links. I have some suggestions about 
how to implement this . . .


Links constantly change. It is a nightmare to keep up with them. 
Even the publishers' web sites change their URLs frequently.


Frankly, I see no purpose to doing this. Google and other search 
tools do this job better than a group of humans could.


That's fine. All it would take is single page or a couple of pages, 
and they can be hosted anywhere. I could set it up on a wiki, I do 
have a MediaWiki installation for beyondpolitics.org, and, as 
founder, I have some prerogratives


Anyone looking for papers by Swartz will find them easily enough. If 
you start at LENR-CANR.org, you will find his papers listed in our 
bibliography. From that, you need only type the title into Google 
and you will find the paper at his web site as quickly as you would 
at LENR-CANR.org.


Most people searching for papers at LENR-CANR use Google anyway.


Sure, but I can tell you, sometimes it's very hard to find papers. 
*Usually* it is easy. It can happen, for example, that links at a 
site are defective and you only find the link through javascript or 
some image click, lots of webmasters don't have a clue about how to 
make everything googleable, or, more accurately, findable by the googlebots.


This isn't a big deal, Jed. Lenr-canr.org doesn't have to have these 
links. Don't worry about it. If there is something you should know 
about, as to what I do, I'll tell you.


The idea that you could effectively censor out a significant chunk of 
this field is preposterous, and if you tried, and it was something 
important, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. I don't expect you 
to do that If Swartz wants his papers hosted, they will be hosted 
somewhere, and your requirements for that would be simple to meet. I 
don't know how much he's been published outside of the journal hosted 
on NET, but he sure had a pile of papers there.


You don't host everything, and for good reason; your policy, as I 
understand it, requires, for everything, and with very few exceptions 
(such as the DoE report from 1989), explicit author permission and 
cooperation, with an author representing that he or she has the right 
to grant permission.


Because of my work at Wikipedia, and some moderately knowledgeable 
editors who were looking for every excuse they could find to keep out 
links to lenr-canr.org, I got to examine the horse's teeth fairly 
closely. Nice teeth, not perfect, but quite good enough to do the 
job. Reminds me. I intended to fix the lenr-canr.org Wikipedia 
blacklisting problem; I'm temporarily blocked (3 months) on 
en.wikipedia, and prohibited from anything related to cold fusion 
there for a year, but that's not where the blacklist is hosted; had 
it been so, probably I'd have done it already, months ago, because I 
managed to obtain an Arbitration Committee ruling that the original 
blacklistings were improper. But the blacklist was taken global, on 
meta, and I'm not blocked or restricted there, nor do I expect to be 
blocked there. It's a loose end I should tie up, I did the groundwork for it.


And by doing such an excellent job for so many years, building your 
site and its reputation, you laid the groundwork to make it possible. 

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based  
(AFAIK)- in fact I
doubt that anyone other than me has even considered that it might  
not need to be

lattice based.


Not true.  For example, see:

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

page 7 and following.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:53:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Bias is too strong a word. It is more a case of neat-freak programmer (me)
>who likes to keep things in neat categories. I meant what I said: people
>come to LENR-CANR looking for one thing, and I don't want them to find much
>stuff that doesn't seem to fit. That annoys me when I go to other
>specialized websites.

My point Jed, is that neither LENR nor CANR specifically implies the presence of
a lattice, hence I think restricting the content to papers based only on lattice
based LENR-CANR is too severe a restriction. It may as yet turn out that it
really does only occur in a lattice, but I don't think we are that far along yet
in our understanding of the phenomenon (or perhaps phenomena if it turns out
that there are actually several different mechanisms capable of producing
LENR-CANR).

>
>The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can find Mills in an instant, so
>they don't need me.

Here you implicitly recognize that Mills might be relevant to the topic.

>
>A few unclassifiable odds things such as Oriani or Vysotskii will not bother
>readers. Think of it this way. You go to the Freer Gallery to say Oriental
>art. It is chock full of magnificent ancient paintings and sculptures from
>China and Japan. There are also a few paintings by Whistler interspersed
>among them -- also masterpieces. They don't bother the viewer even though
>they are "off topic" as it were,

The problem is that you seem to think that if it isn't lattice based then it's
"off topic".

Let me give a concrete example. Muon catalyzed fusion clearly meets the
definition of a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, and hence papers on it could find a
place in your library, but I suspect you wouldn't even consider including them.
I understand how this has happened. It's because CF started with lattice based
reactions, and all the work since has also been lattice based (AFAIK)- in fact I
doubt that anyone other than me has even considered that it might not need to be
lattice based.

>I don't recall ever discussing this with Ed. I also do not recall Mills or
>anyone else in his team submitting a paper to LENR-CANR

Am I mistaken in believing that you actively seek out papers for inclusion, and
don't just wait for people to send them to you?

>, although I met with
>them at MIT and at other time. At MIT I got the distinct impression they
>considered their gigantic bulk Ni experiments to be a form of cold fusion,
>and I expect most cold fusion researchers think so. I have thought about
>uploading their MIT slides but I can't find any of the authors to ask
>permission. (And as you have seen, some authors do go ape shit when you
>upload without permission!)
>
>- Jed
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:22 AM 10/2/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


> If you would agree, perhaps some of us could edit sections of your
> bibliography HTML to add links; links to original publishers might be
> useful in any case, whether or not you host the actual paper, and
> send these sections to you to use. Or whatever would be easiest for you.



FWIW, whose "...some of us"? Who in their right mind would agree to
open themselves up to potential harassment and potential lawsuits, as
well as the amount of money one could end up spending defending
themselves, simply by trying to "edit" the text of another person who
by many accounts does not appear to be very easy to work with? I don't
need even the slightest possibility of such aggravation in my life. I
would be a fool to embark on such an editing project.


Who in his right mind would allow his name to be associated with a 
host of fringe topics by subscribing to and posting to Vortex-l?


"Some of us" means those who are willing, obviously. I'm willing to 
help. If nobody is willing, well, what harm has been done? It's not 
like I'm asking for donations or asking Jed to lean on that support.



It may sound reasonable and accommodating at first glance, until one
starts figuring out who is actually going to be willing to perform all
this selfless, thankless volunteer work, let alone be qualified to do
it.


Well, I just came from begin very active in a community with ten 
million registered editors, that depends on a host of people, tens of 
thousands, at least, to regularly do large amounts of volunteer work, 
with a core of a few hundred who do astonishing amounts of work and 
who therefore expect extra control that community has problems, 
but it has also built a huge project of significant value. It falls 
down in certain ways, and that's why I'm not editing it any more, but 
the fact is that there are people willing to help. Jed himself is 
such a helper, he's not paid for this work, in fact, he's poured a 
great deal into it, if I'm correct. He's welcome to correct me. 
Storms claims to have been the only person to make money from cold 
fusion, but I'm sure there have been others. They just don't have 
their names on things and, then, there have been countless 
volunteers, people who helped on their own time, without special compensation.


The labor exists, if there is the clear and expressed need.


 How many chimpanzees are we going to get working on "editing"
these publication(s)? Then, the project, that could now be fragmented
among several monkeys, would then have to be reassembled back in the
right order - all this eventually to be approved by you-know-who.


Isn't that up to Jed? And is there nobody who could assist him, that 
he would trust? If so, he's in deep trouble, and his library will 
fall apart when he does. Hopefully, that will be a long time from 
now, but we never know.



Yeah, right.


Double positive that equals a negative. I love it. Right.


If I were a librarian responsible for maintaining the integrity of all
the scientific publications hosted at my web site I simply could not
afford to waste time babysitting the specific predilections of a
particular author, particularly when I have hundreds of other authors,
and thousands of their publications that I must deal with whom
fortunately appear to be far more accommodating, reasonable, and
easier to work with.

My two cents.


Worth less.

[Vo]:Fleischmann

[Steven Krivit]

Dardik's Team Blocks Reporter’s Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann
by Steven B. Krivit

TISBURY, U.K. -- A pre-arranged meeting between this reporter and Professor 
Martin Fleischmann, co-discoverer of "cold fusion," failed to occur 
yesterday, allegedly as a result of Fleischmann's failing health.


Fleischmann had recently been in the U.S. receiving treatments from Irving 
Dardik's LifeWaves program. Fleischmann is suffering from Parkinson's 
disease and diabetes.


The program, which, according to Dardik, can heal any disease, is based on 
the same concept that Dardik uses in his SuperWaves to trigger low-energy 
nuclear reactions.


In 2004, this reporter interviewed Dardik about the way the process 
delivers the waves to the patient; however, the reporter did not understand 
Dardik’s explanation.


Fleischmann had told this reporter several months ago that he was going to 
the U.S. for several months to work with Dardik, though Fleischmann did not 
specify whether he was going for treatment by Dardik or for collaborative 
LENR research with Dardik.


This week, Sheila Fleischmann told this reporter that her husband has been 
confined to his bed since returning to the U.K. several days ago. He has 
been unable to see visitors or take phone calls, she said.


Along with Sheila Fleischmann, Ryan Freilino met this reporter at the door 
of the Fleischmann home in Tisbury on Thursday. Freilino introduced himself 
as part of the "U.S. health team" that was caring for Fleischmann.


Freilino, 23, is the chief operating officer and head trainer for LifeWaves 
International, LLC, based in Califon, N.J. According to his company’s Web 
site, his education comprises an undergraduate degree in biology earned at 
Bucknell University, in Pennsylvania, in 2008.


[]

Photo: Ryan Freilino, LifeWaves, LLC

After being turned away at Fleischmann’s door, this reporter e-mailed Rick 
Kramer, who handles media relations for Dardik, to get more information.


"I can tell you that my understanding is that Fleischmann is doing quite 
well and that the family is extremely encouraged with the progress made 
this past summer at LifeWaves," Kramer wrote today. "I don’t believe that 
he is confined to bed or too ill to talk on the phone ­ in fact, he 
conducted several press interviews during his time in the U.S."


This reporter then telephoned Sheila Fleischmann and again asked to speak 
to her husband.  Freilino took the phone and advised this reporter that it 
was the wish of the Fleischmann family that this reporter not make further 
contact with the Fleischmanns.


Freilino declined to answer to this reporter in what capacity he was acting 
and specifically who in the Fleischmann family had decided, on behalf of 
Fleischmann, that this reporter cease attempts to contact either Fleischmann.


Freilino also advised this reporter that further attempts to contact either 
Fleischmann would result in Freilino’s calling the local police.


Dardik is a physician, though his New York state 
medical 
license was revoked in 1995 by the state Department of Health. The 
department found Dardik guilty of professional misconduct and fraud.


According to Quackwatch, 
"the revocation proceeding was initiated by Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a 
former TV investigative reporter."


The Health Department stated that Dardik “had developed a wave energy 
theory and a treatment program to create wave patterns of behavior designed 
to optimize the body’s normal health patterns."


The report also stated, "The Petitioner argues that the Respondent’s 
inappropriate, unethical, insensitive and unconscionable conduct is 
consistent with a finding of moral unfitness and that the facts that 
support the Committee’s Determination that the Respondent guaranteed a 
cure, committed fraud, exerted undue influence, exploited patients and 
failed to maintain adequate records are sufficient to sustain the charge of 
moral unfitness."


New Energy Times has published stories on Dardik's Energetics Technologies 
LLC, which claims SuperWaves as its key ingredient to achieve LENR excess 
heat. In 2004, the company reported a record 2,500 percent excess heat in a 
one-time LENR experiment, but the firm has never reported either its own 
repetition or a third-party replication of such a stunning achievement.


The company’s Web site implies that its technology "produces an astonishing 
25 times more energy output than the energy required to produce it."


Fleischmann is scheduled to go to Rome next week to receive an award at the 
15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.





<>

Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation

[Mauro Lacy]

It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of light, and of light's velocity.
Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light,
because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to
discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material
entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material
object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely,
leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace
behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light.
Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of
the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything
regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying
phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.


Frank wrote:
> Mauro,
>   I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
> spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
> could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
> spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
> cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
> its' initial  spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
> Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
> cavity where my interpretation of "up conversion" is relativistic meaning
> space time is twisted making the longer vac flux "appear" faster from our
> perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
> inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
> limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
> energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
> contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
> expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
> confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
> point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
> to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
> necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
> travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
> - they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
> in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
> saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
> with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
> energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
> Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
> further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
>  It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
> and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
>
>
> Hi Frank
>
> Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
> physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
> even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
>
> This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
> Search the archive for "Zitter and ZPE" for an entertaining read.
>
> Mauro
>
> [snip]
>
>  Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
> Mauro Lacy
> Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
>
> grok wrote:
>   
>> As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy 
>> mounted the barricade and roared out:
>>
>> 
>>> The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack
>>> underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
>>> physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
>>> construction we call time, at the physical level.
>>>   
>> 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
>> It is an
>> 
>
> The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
> matter in space(whatever they are.)
>   
>> emergent phenomenon. You start there.
>> 
>
> You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
> necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
> 'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
> things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
> Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
>   
>> To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
>> relation of matter
>> and space into something it is not.
>> 
>
> You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
> of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the way

Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion

[mixent]

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:51 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>At 06:30 PM 9/30/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>>Note that in at least
>>one of Dr. Oriani's papers he reports ionizing radiation emitted 
>>from the vapor
>>above a CF cell.
>
>I don't think that there is any substantial suspicion that this 
>radiation results from anything other than decay of radioactive 
>products coming from the cathode. (Or maybe some level of radiation 
>from the cathode.)

I have a very substantial suspicion that this is caused by reactions in the
vapor itself. Specifically the reaction,

Na-23 + H ==> Ne-20 + He-4 + 2.38 MeV 

which after momentum redistribution yields a 1.98 MeV alpha that neatly matches
the energy signature measured by Dr. Oriani. Of course he himself considers this
reaction out of the question due to the high charge on the Sodium nucleus.

>
>>  I think any interest in the field is due to our common need to 
>> find a new source
>>of energy, so I think your belief that people only want to read about lattice
>>based CF is probably misguided.
>
>He didn't say that. He said that people interested in lattice-based 
>CF might not like having a lot of papers on a lot of other 
>only-peripherally related subjects.

I don't think that non-lattice based CF is "peripheral". In fact, my device, if
it works, will not be based on a lattice at all. (I'm still trying to invent a
lattice based one).

>
>>I also think that while a lattice may well *frequently* provide the necessary
>>environment, it may not be a *necessary* requirement.
>
>I'm unaware of anything other than muon-catalyzed fusion that 
>bypasses the Coulomb barrier, without substantial confinement. 

...but confinement without a lattice is possible, as your own example of
muon-catalyzed fusion makes clear. (Muonic molecules constitute a form of
confinement). In fact confinement within a reduced size molecule may well be the
most robust method of achieving fusion.

>It 
>might not be a metal lattice; the whole biological transmutation 
>approach, we might suspect, would represent protein-catalyzed fusion, 
>basically a protein, I assume, setting up confinement conditions that 
>facilitate fusion.

What sort of confinement do you have in mind here?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation

[Frank]

Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
its' initial  spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
cavity where my interpretation of "up conversion" is relativistic meaning
space time is twisted making the longer vac flux "appear" faster from our
perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
- they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
 It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)


Hi Frank

Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.

This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for "Zitter and ZPE" for an entertaining read.

Mauro

[snip]

 Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700

grok wrote:
>
> As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy 
> mounted the barricade and roared out:
>
> > The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack
> > underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
> > physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
> > construction we call time, at the physical level.
>
> 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
> It is an

The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
> emergent phenomenon. You start there.

You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
>
> To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
> relation of matter
> and space into something it is not.

You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that hasn't.
>
>
> -- grok. 

Re: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Mauro Lacy]

Jones Beene wrote:
> Original Message-
> From: Frank Roarty 
>
> Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
> and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
> levitating great stones...
>
> Just wondering...
>
>
> Well, you have to draw the lines (of credulity) somewhere, Fran  ;-)
>
> However, acoustic levitation is scientific fact ... as is sonoluminescence
> and the Casimir force - sonofusion is less likely, but possible ... the
> first three are certain beyond doubt, so maybe this is worth some
> consideration.
>
> despite the fact that acoustic levitation is not known to be efficient,
> but that does not mean that it was not part of some kind of lost 'secret',
> as improbable as that may "sound". Do I hear a deep rumble of laughter out
> there? 
>
> so, we could start there with the suggestion, which is based on
> historical evidence of an array of Shofar, primitive horns ... that is,
> assuming that you are referring to the possibility of levitating of large
> stones (which can be mostly calcium, in the case of limestone) by primitive
> people using sound to instigate cavitation, with secondary Casimir
> effects... then ... there is  anecdotal evidence that will perhaps allow an
> "arguable" case... perhaps only slightly more convincing than the hypothesis
> of the Egyptian pyramid blocks being cast in situ from ancient concrete...
>
> In Biblical days, the "Shofar" or ram's horn was used as a sound to rally
> troops to battle, and was said to have been used by Gideon and his priests
> (in the Book of Judges) as a weapon against the enemy -- and then by Joshua
> to bring down the walls of Jericho. Ancient images of these horns (and those
> from other animals like Eland, etc all of which have 'Fibonacci twists')
> have been found in Egypt and Iraq (Babylon) long before there was an Israel,
> so we can assume that this type of horn, and its acoustic properties, were
> well known to early builders (and warriors). Did the 'twist' play a role in
> the acoustic properties? (i.e. the 'superwave' theory)
>
> The hypothesis, then, can be furthered by the suggestion that certain types
> of chosen stone will have natural Casimir (skeletal) cavities, in which by
> virtue of an external acoustic signal, some medium will be amplified in a
> desired (antigravity) vector. That may explain why the quarries (for the
> largest stones) were often a long distance away from the pyramid site.
>
> This preferred vector could be inadvertent, even - and due to the
> application of water or oil (blood, etc ?) to the bottom side of the block
> of stone, say, when the liquid was used as a lubricant in dragging the stone
> 'most of the way' to where it is to be levitated by the hornblowers to its
> final position. 
>
> Does anyone want to take it from there?
>   

Levitation produced by a form of acoustic resonance. Interesting. The
problem will be not only how to produce the required sound, but also,
and probably most importantly, how to canalize the effect in a desired
direction, i.e. how to produce a net force in a given direction.

I have my own theory, which involves electromagnetism, but I would not
talk about it because it's too speculative. I can't believe I'm saying
that here :-)
I'll only say that I think the effect is related to the fact that most
of stones (and also the air) are mainly non-conductive. We know a great
deal about the effect of electromagnetic fields on conducting
materials(i.e. eddy currents) but probably not that much about its
effects on non-conductive materials and elements.

Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Infinite Energey article using hydrino to eliminate nuclear waste

[mixent]

In reply to  Frank Roarty's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:09:03 -0400:
Hi,

I'm not sure that would be necessary. The space in the crystal lattice itself
may already function as a cavity (and it's about the smallest cavity we could
make anyway).

>Nice! Sometimes I can't see the obvious, You are suggesting a formula to
>make spent uranium into a skeletal catalyst? Already a great idea or did you
>something even better in mind?
>Fran
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: How can we overlook Spontaneous Chicken Combusion (SCC)?

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:13:39 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>I wrote: "On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma chain  
>reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance induced  
>cavitation augmentation of that reaction.  Cavitation, especially,  
>multi-bubble cavitation seeded by gamma tracks,  could involve  
>various elements in proton sonofusion, including iron."
>
>That should have been: "On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma  
>chain reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance  
>induced cavitation augmentation of that reaction.  Cavitation,  
>especially, multi-bubble cavitation seeded by particle tracks, could  
>involve various elements in proton sonofusion, including iron."

..while gamma-rays as such may not leave tracks, they can ionize atoms resulting
in energetic electrons, which in turn can leave tracks.

(AFAIK gamma energy is usually either not absorbed by an atom at all, or it is
absorbed all in one go resulting in an energetic electron. Tracks OTOH result
from partial absorption of the energy of a fast particle, causing ionization,
which particle then goes on to further ionize other atoms along it's path,
resulting in a track.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation

[Mauro Lacy]

Hi Frank

Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.

This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for "Zitter and ZPE" for an entertaining read.

Mauro


Frank Roarty wrote:
> This thread may seem unrelated to energy but in the same way reactionless
> drives are contemplated with respect to Casimir cavities these legends may
> have a kernel of truth. There is no moving linear differential motion of gas
> atoms like the reactionless drive theories but there are trapped ambient
> gases that I suspect become agitated via acoustic sources -singing, musical
> devices or striking stones with a vibrating rod That would allow an elevated
> pyramid block to be scooted a couple bow lengths or Easter island megaliths
> to be positioned where we see them today(Coral castle might have been
> magnetic agitation but still a calcium based stone). This wild speculation
> would support a 4D perspective of time where the vacuum fluctuations inside
> the calcium Casimir cavities allow the ambient gas to turn "fat" on the time
> axis and even more so where large molecules are concerned. These "temporally
> fat" molecules might stick out like needles in a pincushion suddenly turned
> sideways snagging the temporal walls of the future and past like hanging
> curtains. My ideas of time extends the coffee cup analogy of professor Ron
> Mallet who is currently trying to build a time machine based on lasers and
> coiled fibe. If the "present" represents a sufficiently small temporal
> component then it may be possible to exploit the boundary by forcing
> divergent inertial frames to occur inside one another.
>
> My time perspective: My interpretation of 4D Space-time is from a future
> perspective on the time axis looking down on the zero intersect with the 3D
> spatial axis called the "present". This narrow time interval is only
> measurable differentially since our time perception is based on relative
> motion between the fabric of time though space. We can only measure
> accumulated time dilation measured between different inertial frames such as
> the twin paradox. C and Bohr radius always appear constant within our
> inertial frame. At an atomic level a temporal perspective would show
> orbitals forming halos of different radii while the vortii extending down to
> the nucleii gets deeper or more shallow depending on acceleration. This is
> much like the coffee analogy of Ron Mallet, the faster Ron stirs his coffee
> the more the radius of the frothy center contracts but the vortex also
> extends further down into the
> coffee a proportional amount. Ron suggests we can only see the coffee
> surface in our 3D world. I am suggesting the radius of the frothy center
> represents the Bohr radius and always appears unchanged just like C appears
> constant from within any inertial frames. The swirling vortex going down
> into the coffee gets longer as the radius contracts to keep the volume
> constant. I propose our time perception inside the "Present" is based on
> this constant volume making it impossible for us to sense changes in
> relative motion of spatial dimensions through time . The Present time frame
> has a narrow temporal dimension that varies with acceleration. This narrow
> dimesion will always remain negligible with respect to the spatial
> dimensions from our perspective because our time perception is inherently
> scaled by the volume of space moving through time. From the future
> perspective the Present time frame would appear like a narrow ribbon that
> gets wider or narrower with acceleration and flattens the material universe
> down to an atomic plane where all mater is accessible from the time axis.
> >From this perspective all matter, even that which we consider encased inside
> other matter lies flat on a spatial axis with an unimpeded time axis above
> and below it. Our 3D illusion of reality is much like an electron gun
> tracing out a 2d image on a TV screen. From this perspective we exist in an
> extremely narrow ribbon at the intersect of Future and Past. A single time
> frame provides a vast quadric volume built upon the cubic volume of 3D
> space. The electrons are forever trailing behind the nucleus like the tail
> of a stretchable arrow with the nucleus at its tip sinking into the future
> with their orbital energy constantly restored by virtual particles winking
> into and out of existence as postulated by Puthoff in [1] "Ground state of
> hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state". My suggestion is
> these virtual particles are traveling through the present from the time axis
> keeping the orbital "open" as they squeeze through our spatial dimension.
> Regards
> Fran
>
>
>   

Re: [Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[Jed Rothwell]

Unfortunately for me, this fellow has now actually found a weakness 
in a paper, and also locked me out of the discussion. He says the 
tritium findings at AMOCO were weak, because the count only doubled. 
That sounds like a significant increase to me, but he is right that 
the paper lacks details. I know more about the calorimetry in this 
paper than tritium.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

> If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder of what they
> are like:
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940
>
> Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that this person absolutely
> rejects any paper not published in a U.S. peer-reviewed journal. He will not
> even glance at a paper in a Japanese, Italian or Indian journal. He rejects
> anything published in an electrochemical journal:
>
> "If you don't get the fact that it's meaningless and irrelevant unless it's
> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then you're quite hopeless."
>
> He does not consider JJAP or Fusion Technology "reputable."
>
> Note also that he asks repeatedly for proof and papers, and then refuses to
> look at them. This is classic full blown "skeptical" behavior
>
> - Jed

I disagree on one crucial point. Skeptics are not bad. We need
skeptics. I would also say that you are, in fact, a healthy skeptc
since you aren't willing to accept the conclusions of any experiment
unless they have been independently replicated. This individual, on
the other hand, is not a skeptic even though I would bet he often
self-congratulates himself and truly believes he is pursuing a
skeptical line of inquiry. The individual is behaving more like a
debunker. Debunkers repeatedly show no interest in investigating any
other line of inquiry or conclusion other than the one they carved
into their own minds for all to gaze upon in abject awe.

The UFO community has had it's fill of debunkers.

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

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers with hyperlinks only

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

The usefulness of lenr-canr.org would increase somewhat if the 
bibliography included useful links. I have some suggestions about 
how to implement this . . .


Links constantly change. It is a nightmare to keep up with them. Even 
the publishers' web sites change their URLs frequently.


Frankly, I see no purpose to doing this. Google and other search 
tools do this job better than a group of humans could.


Anyone looking for papers by Swartz will find them easily enough. If 
you start at LENR-CANR.org, you will find his papers listed in our 
bibliography. From that, you need only type the title into Google and 
you will find the paper at his web site as quickly as you would at 
LENR-CANR.org.


Most people searching for papers at LENR-CANR use Google anyway.

- Jed

[Vo]:An extreme skeptic

[Jed Rothwell]

If you have not dealt with a skeptic lately, here is a reminder of 
what they are like:


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1940

Scroll down to the bottom and you will see that this person 
absolutely rejects any paper not published in a U.S. peer-reviewed 
journal. He will not even glance at a paper in a Japanese, Italian or 
Indian journal. He rejects anything published in an electrochemical journal:


"If you don't get the fact that it's meaningless and irrelevant 
unless it's in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, then you're quite hopeless."


He does not consider JJAP or Fusion Technology "reputable."

Note also that he asks repeatedly for proof and papers, and then 
refuses to look at them. This is classic full blown "skeptical" behavior


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers with hyperlinks only

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:14 AM 10/2/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own 
website, then all
you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own 
web site. It

wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world where the actual
document resides.


Robin has a point. Whenever, for whatever reason, you cannot host a 
document, having a URL posted to where the document is hosted would 
be useful. This could be to the sites of publishers, as with many 
peer-reviewed papers you list but don't host for lack of 
permission, or to other hosts.


Regarding Swartz's papers, I have no reason to upload them either in 
part or in whole. They do not seem important to me and I do not care 
whether anyone reads them. They have no political significance. When 
I uploaded his abstract here (not even to LENR-CANR!) he went ape 
shit and threatened dire legal repercussions. Even his response here 
was over the top. So I am not going to upload any part of his work 
to LENR-CANR without unmistakably clear permission.


The usefulness of lenr-canr.org would increase somewhat if the 
bibliography included useful links. I have some suggestions about how 
to implement this, without increasing the burden on Jed, he already 
carries a lot, but I'll leave that for later. I do consider Jed's 
position reasonable. Swartz's papers papers should clearly be 
included with any complete bibliography on cold fusion, regardless of 
his personality or other problems, and there is no legal issue from 
listing papers in a bibliography or pointing to abstracts. Actually 
hosting an abstract is probably acceptable as well, unless the 
abstract is not published and available. I recognize that in extreme 
situations, then, not listing an abstract but only giving 
bibliographic information is possibly appropriate or necessary. 

Re: [Vo]:Patterson and Letts experiment

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

As far as I know, Swartz has never actually attempted to turn a flow 
calorimeter cell sideways to see if the performance changes. Cravens 
and I have actually tested this  hypothesis by experiment. We tried 
turning cells sideways. It makes no measurable difference.


I forgot to mention the most obvious reason this hypothesis is wrong. 
Many people -- thousands of people, actually -- run flow calorimeters 
in the vertical configuration. They do this in cold fusion and many 
other fields. McKubre and Storms, for example. When they calibrate 
with a joule heater or run a non-working cathode, their input equals 
output to within 10 ~ 100 mW. Their input power and flow rates are 
comparable to the Patterson and Letts experiment I observed. 
Therefore, if this configuration produces a 1 kW artifact, as Swartz 
claimed, McKubre, Storms and thousands of other people would see that 
artifact. Some of them would turn their cells sideways (or rearrange 
the inlet and outlet flow) and they would see the artifact go away. 
This does not happen.


I suppose there might be a very small artifact, at the milliwatt 
scale, caused by the effect Swartz specifies. I wouldn't know. I have 
never heard of anything like that. But  I am certain there are no 
heretofore unknown artifacts 100,000 times above McKubre's error bars.


- Jed

FW: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Roarty, Francis X]

I meant to say alkaline earth metal not rare earth.

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:55 PM
To: froarty...@comcast.net
Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:megolith levitation



Frank Roarty wrote:
> Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
> and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
> levitating great stones and I would be interested if they share rare earth
> metal ingredients like calcium.

What?  Calcium is a rare earth?

Not that rare -- our well water here is about 10% calcium, I think.


> 
> Just wondering...
> 

Re: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Roarty, Francis X
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok - so I am over the line but I wouldn't call it antigravity -

Not quite what you had in mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KzmB2bI7s

Maybe a little closer:

http://www.youtube.com/v/T_whh8O_EMo

The story that goes with it:

http://www.margaretdeefholts.com/levitatingstone-shivapur.html

And here is the story of Dr. Jarl and the Monks:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid08.htm

Terry

Re: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Frank Roarty wrote:
> Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
> and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
> levitating great stones and I would be interested if they share rare earth
> metal ingredients like calcium.

What?  Calcium is a rare earth?

Not that rare -- our well water here is about 10% calcium, I think.


> 
> Just wondering...
> 

RE: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Roarty, Francis X]

Ok - so I am over the line but I wouldn't call it antigravity - if the idea of 
inertial frames diverging inside an equivalence boundary is correct then large 
molecular compounds formed inside them could have a wider temporal boundary 
then the very cavity it occupies -like fine sand flowing between two glass 
plates where a suddenly fat grain gets "stuck" and all the sand has to flow 
around it. Get enough of these "stuck" grains and the macro object also resists 
the Flowing field of sand (gravity). If any of the legends are more true than 
the others I would lean toward a "resistive" model where the object has to be 
first elevated then agitated into this "stuck" mode, then after kicking out its 
vertical support a brief period of resistance could be exploited as the object 
sinks more slowly than normal to the ground.
Regards
Fran 


Well, you have to draw the lines (of credulity) somewhere, Fran  ;-)

However, acoustic levitation is scientific fact ... as is sonoluminescence
and the Casimir force - sonofusion is less likely, but possible ... the
first three are certain beyond doubt, so maybe this is worth some
consideration.

despite the fact that acoustic levitation is not known to be efficient,
but that does not mean that it was not part of some kind of lost 'secret',
as improbable as that may "sound". Do I hear a deep rumble of laughter out
there? 

so, we could start there with the suggestion, which is based on
historical evidence of an array of Shofar, primitive horns ... that is,
assuming that you are referring to the possibility of levitating of large
stones (which can be mostly calcium, in the case of limestone) by primitive
people using sound to instigate cavitation, with secondary Casimir
effects... then ... there is  anecdotal evidence that will perhaps allow an
"arguable" case... perhaps only slightly more convincing than the hypothesis
of the Egyptian pyramid blocks being cast in situ from ancient concrete...

In Biblical days, the "Shofar" or ram's horn was used as a sound to rally
troops to battle, and was said to have been used by Gideon and his priests
(in the Book of Judges) as a weapon against the enemy -- and then by Joshua
to bring down the walls of Jericho. Ancient images of these horns (and those
from other animals like Eland, etc all of which have 'Fibonacci twists')
have been found in Egypt and Iraq (Babylon) long before there was an Israel,
so we can assume that this type of horn, and its acoustic properties, were
well known to early builders (and warriors). Did the 'twist' play a role in
the acoustic properties? (i.e. the 'superwave' theory)

The hypothesis, then, can be furthered by the suggestion that certain types
of chosen stone will have natural Casimir (skeletal) cavities, in which by
virtue of an external acoustic signal, some medium will be amplified in a
desired (antigravity) vector. That may explain why the quarries (for the
largest stones) were often a long distance away from the pyramid site.

This preferred vector could be inadvertent, even - and due to the
application of water or oil (blood, etc ?) to the bottom side of the block
of stone, say, when the liquid was used as a lubricant in dragging the stone
'most of the way' to where it is to be levitated by the hornblowers to its
final position. 

Does anyone want to take it from there?

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Robin and Abd:

>> Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own
>> website, then all you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to
>> it iso to your own web site. It wouldn't matter in the slightest
>> to the rest of the world where the actual document resides.
>
> Robin has a point. Whenever, for whatever reason, you cannot host a
> document, having a URL posted to where the document is hosted would
> be useful. This could be to the sites of publishers, as with many
> peer-reviewed papers you list but don't host for lack of permission,
> or to other hosts.
>
> If you would agree, perhaps some of us could edit sections of your
> bibliography HTML to add links; links to original publishers might be
> useful in any case, whether or not you host the actual paper, and
> send these sections to you to use. Or whatever would be easiest for you.
>
> Otherwise someone could create a page or pages with those links for
> all LENR-CANR.org papers, and host it. Big job, actually, but it
> doesn't have to be done by only one person. I certainly wouldn't do
> this alone, but if anyone wants to volunteer, I could facilitate it
> and provide, somewhere, hosting for it.

It's not completely clear to me if Abd is asking Dr. Swartz or Mr.
Rothwell these hypothetical questions.

FWIW, whose "...some of us"? Who in their right mind would agree to
open themselves up to potential harassment and potential lawsuits, as
well as the amount of money one could end up spending defending
themselves, simply by trying to "edit" the text of another person who
by many accounts does not appear to be very easy to work with? I don't
need even the slightest possibility of such aggravation in my life. I
would be a fool to embark on such an editing project.

It may sound reasonable and accommodating at first glance, until one
starts figuring out who is actually going to be willing to perform all
this selfless, thankless volunteer work, let alone be qualified to do
it. How many chimpanzees are we going to get working on "editing"
these publication(s)? Then, the project, that could now be fragmented
among several monkeys, would then have to be reassembled back in the
right order - all this eventually to be approved by you-know-who.

Yeah, right.

If I were a librarian responsible for maintaining the integrity of all
the scientific publications hosted at my web site I simply could not
afford to waste time babysitting the specific predilections of a
particular author, particularly when I have hundreds of other authors,
and thousands of their publications that I must deal with whom
fortunately appear to be far more accommodating, reasonable, and
easier to work with.

My two cents.

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

[Vo]:LENR-CANR papers with hyperlinks only

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own 
website, then all
you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own 
web site. It

wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world where the actual
document resides.


Robin has a point. Whenever, for whatever reason, you cannot host a 
document, having a URL posted to where the document is hosted would 
be useful. This could be to the sites of publishers, as with many 
peer-reviewed papers you list but don't host for lack of permission, 
or to other hosts.


I have 4 or 5 papers like that already, such as this one:

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

I had the full document but the publisher called and asked me to 
remove it. I asked "is it okay to keep the abstract?" and he said 
sure, please do.


I include at least the abstract or in some cases juicy quotes from 
the paper, such as this one:


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

That is here for political reasons. I want people to see Maddox's 
words. The policy at LENR-CANR is that nothing goes in without 
permission from the author and/or publisher, but I suppose we are 
skirting the rules slightly for this paper. I do not think Maddox 
would mind. He was not shy about his opinions. I wish Park or Slakey 
would let me upload one of their rabid attacks claiming that all cold 
fusion researchers are frauds, lunatics and criminals. Maybe I should 
ask them again, but I think last time the subject came up, Ed was 
unenthusiastic and told me he preferred not to see that stuff. Too 
much controversy. That's one of the reasons I never uploaded any 
version of this:


http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

It makes sense to have papers with abstracts only for political 
reasons (Maddox) or because the papers are really important and I 
would like people to read them (Szpak). However, given the modern 
Internet structure and the universal visibility of papers thanks to 
Google, there is not much reason to do this nowadays.


Regarding Swartz's papers, I have no reason to upload them either in 
part or in whole. They do not seem important to me and I do not care 
whether anyone reads them. They have no political significance. When 
I uploaded his abstract here (not even to LENR-CANR!) he went ape 
shit and threatened dire legal repercussions. Even his response here 
was over the top. So I am not going to upload any part of his work to 
LENR-CANR without unmistakably clear permission.


- Jed

[Vo]:Re: How can we overlook Spontaneous Chicken Combusion (SCC)?

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma chain  
reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance induced  
cavitation augmentation of that reaction.  Cavitation, especially,  
multi-bubble cavitation seeded by gamma tracks,  could involve  
various elements in proton sonofusion, including iron."


That should have been: "On top of the possibility of a K40-D2O-gamma  
chain reaction, there is the possibility of an acoustic resonance  
induced cavitation augmentation of that reaction.  Cavitation,  
especially, multi-bubble cavitation seeded by particle tracks, could  
involve various elements in proton sonofusion, including iron."


Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:megolith levitation

[Jones Beene]

Original Message-
From: Frank Roarty 

Has Vortex previously considered cavitation of ambient gases in limestone
and other calcium based megaliths? Numerous cultures have common legends of
levitating great stones...

Just wondering...


Well, you have to draw the lines (of credulity) somewhere, Fran  ;-)

However, acoustic levitation is scientific fact ... as is sonoluminescence
and the Casimir force - sonofusion is less likely, but possible ... the
first three are certain beyond doubt, so maybe this is worth some
consideration.

despite the fact that acoustic levitation is not known to be efficient,
but that does not mean that it was not part of some kind of lost 'secret',
as improbable as that may "sound". Do I hear a deep rumble of laughter out
there? 

so, we could start there with the suggestion, which is based on
historical evidence of an array of Shofar, primitive horns ... that is,
assuming that you are referring to the possibility of levitating of large
stones (which can be mostly calcium, in the case of limestone) by primitive
people using sound to instigate cavitation, with secondary Casimir
effects... then ... there is  anecdotal evidence that will perhaps allow an
"arguable" case... perhaps only slightly more convincing than the hypothesis
of the Egyptian pyramid blocks being cast in situ from ancient concrete...

In Biblical days, the "Shofar" or ram's horn was used as a sound to rally
troops to battle, and was said to have been used by Gideon and his priests
(in the Book of Judges) as a weapon against the enemy -- and then by Joshua
to bring down the walls of Jericho. Ancient images of these horns (and those
from other animals like Eland, etc all of which have 'Fibonacci twists')
have been found in Egypt and Iraq (Babylon) long before there was an Israel,
so we can assume that this type of horn, and its acoustic properties, were
well known to early builders (and warriors). Did the 'twist' play a role in
the acoustic properties? (i.e. the 'superwave' theory)

The hypothesis, then, can be furthered by the suggestion that certain types
of chosen stone will have natural Casimir (skeletal) cavities, in which by
virtue of an external acoustic signal, some medium will be amplified in a
desired (antigravity) vector. That may explain why the quarries (for the
largest stones) were often a long distance away from the pyramid site.

This preferred vector could be inadvertent, even - and due to the
application of water or oil (blood, etc ?) to the bottom side of the block
of stone, say, when the liquid was used as a lubricant in dragging the stone
'most of the way' to where it is to be levitated by the hornblowers to its
final position. 

Does anyone want to take it from there?

Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:01 AM 10/2/2009, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Actually none of this is necessary. If it is posted on his own 
website, then all

you need on LENR-CANR.org is a URL pointing to it iso to your own web site. It
wouldn't matter in the slightest to the rest of the world where the actual
document resides.


Robin has a point. Whenever, for whatever reason, you cannot host a 
document, having a URL posted to where the document is hosted would 
be useful. This could be to the sites of publishers, as with many 
peer-reviewed papers you list but don't host for lack of permission, 
or to other hosts.


If you would agree, perhaps some of us could edit sections of your 
bibliography HTML to add links; links to original publishers might be 
useful in any case, whether or not you host the actual paper, and 
send these sections to you to use. Or whatever would be easiest for you.


Otherwise someone could create a page or pages with those links for 
all LENR-CANR.org papers, and host it. Big job, actually, but it 
doesn't have to be done by only one person. I certainly wouldn't do 
this alone, but if anyone wants to volunteer, I could facilitate it 
and provide, somewhere, hosting for it.

Re: [Vo]:Patterson and Letts experiment

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

I hope readers of Vo don't mind if I have this public conversation with Jed.

At 11:21 PM 10/1/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Rothwell, J., CETI's 1 kilowatt cold fusion device denonstrated. 
Infinite Energy, 1996. 1(5&6): p. 18.


That wasn't his work, it was CETI's work. He's a writer. That was 
13-effing-years ago. I searched for information about what was 
actually in the article. I finally found 
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ROTHWELLCF.html. 
Now, what's the problem? Rothwell reports some measurements he made, 
he does not appear to make any firm conclusions, and uses 
conditional language. And where are Patterson cells now?


The materials used to make these cells ran out a few years after 
that test. Patterson's grandson and business partner Reding died 
young, and Patterson lost heart. Patterson died some years ago.


Yeah. One of the arguments of the skeptics against cold fusion is 
that the history is littered with companies that made enthusiastic 
announcements about this or that product about to appear. And then 
years pass and finding out what happened is a bit of a task. So here 
is my enthusiastic announcement:




NORTHAMPTON, MA: Friday, October 3, 2009

Lomax Design Associates (LDA) announced today that it is developing 
kits for home demonstration of low energy nuclear reaction effects. 
The first kit will be based on the work of the U.S. Navy SPAWAR 
group, as successfully replicated by the Galileo project coordinated 
by Steve Krivit of New Energy Times, and the effect demonstrated will 
be nuclear radiation; other effects will be explored and may be 
announced before the kits are available for sale. During the 
development process, materials used will be available for sale; the 
first product will be LR-115 radiation detectors. Current kit cell 
design envisions the use of a CR-39 detector inside a 
palladium-deuterium codeposition cell, as described in the Galileo 
project documentation, with an LR-115 film stack outside the cell, 
including a Boron-10 neutron converter screen, to search for and 
characterize neutron radiation and distinguish it from alpha or other 
charged particle radiation as detected by the internal CR-39 detector.


It is expected that the LR-115 detectors will be available for sale 
by December 1, 2009, at easily affordable prices. Inquiries should be 
directed to a...@lomaxdesign.com.



I don't expect to get rich from this, but neither do I expect to 
fail. I'm not selling excess heat, I'm selling science. I believe 
there is a market.


Cravens, who designed this experiment, is still with us and still 
going strong. He has not retracted these results. I know of no 
reason to doubt them, but after all I saw only one test for a few 
hours. Hardly definitive! Plus I agreed with George Miley who was 
there sitting next to me during the test, that this was a sloppy, 
low budget calorimeter. That was a darned shame. Why not use better 
instruments? Ah, therein lies a tale . . .


Please tell it!

When I learned the reason they used such crappy instruments it 
boggled my mind. You would have trouble believing it even now and 
besides it is complicated and wacky tale, so I won't bother telling 
the story. Some other time, perhaps. Suffice it to say this was yet 
another nutty cold fusion folly and a lost opportunity. Not for the 
first or the last time did I sit there and watch people throw away a 
$10 million opportunity for no good reason. You would be surprised 
at how often that happens in business.


Not.

To top off the nuttiness, when I started taking notes and brought 
out my thermistor to measure the water temperature, Reding went nuts 
and tried to throw me out of the room. You don't have permission do 
to that! he cried. I said no, I don't, and if you don't want me to, 
I'll take the next plane back to Atlanta. And I will report in 
Infinite Energy that you did not allow me to confirm your claims. He 
relented. A few months later I found he was using my report in his 
public relations packets!


Of course.

I called Chris Tinsley that night and gave him a blow by blow 
description of this. I started off uncharacteristically upset and 
fuming, but just about the time I got to the part where Reding tells 
me to put away thermistor we were both laughing hysterically. I 
laugh to think of it now. (As I said here before, I never hold a 
grudge or stay angry for more than an hour, and let's face it, that 
was hysterical thing for him to do. What was he thinking?)


I think you are right about yourself, Jed. Mostly! And maybe more 
than that, maybe you are right about Hoffman. Maybe that's not a 
grudge, maybe it's a sober assessment. On the other hand, other 
people can behave one way and then change also. Whatever Hoffman did 
in the past, and I do think he did some good, you seem to think 
differently, but I'm more i

RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)

[Jack O Suileabhain]

Krebbs cycle:  H2O2 hydrogen-peroxide is present within the metabolic 
intracellular energyproducing/respiration 'Krebbs Cycle' constantly.  Likely as 
not a hydrolytic spin-off relative to this ubiquitous cellular function creates 
H2 & O2 intracellularly in sufficient amounts. And in the present of a high 
outside-the-body ambient EM charge in our modern  & routine high exposure to 
direct-EM &/or
static-charge fields such as spending long hours closely in front of TV 
phosphorescence.  The TV cathode-ray direct field is actually quite formidable. 
 And our body's  are obviously water-based sacks of constantly active 
electro-chemical/electro-valent activity; hydrolysis causing large H2 & O2 
presence saturation of the intracellular corpus-matrix could possibly be 
sparked the something prozaic like a simple static spark &/or cigarette 
ignition of pulmonary respiration having a H2/O2 exhaust straight from the 
lungs.   Or maybe even a simple static shock to any part of the body might 
initiate a massive whole body fire/reaction in this enviroment.  Where there is 
water/H2O chemical interactive & hydrolytic  systems this potential is actually 
so high that it is a wonder that we do not see it more often.  And maybe we do 
but it stays confined to small internal areas but deals a lethal affect that is 
routinely written off as the 'effects of aging' etc. especially of course in 
the elderly-shut-ins in front of TV-sets all day whom the effect seems to 
predominate among.

Thusly 'dragon's breath' might not be such a myth as we haved surmised.-JO-

 

 

> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:16:44 -0400
> From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> I may want to retract my ref to Heffners' and Haischs' theory below - I 
> believe their version may only require the cavity translation and is 
> independent of bonding.
> Fran
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:05 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)
> 
> 
> [Snip] point 3 
> 3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is little known - and would be
> involved with the LENR or hot hydrogen process itself, "after" combustion
> initiation by mundane effects, and which could be a factor similar to what
> is seen in this video, of a family that has unusual magnetic bio-fields:
> [end snip]
> 
> Jones,
> I agree with your points 1 and 2 but disagree with your timing mentioned in 
> point 3 ' "after" combustion initiation by mundane effects" '
> You know I endorse relativistic hydrogen vs the hydrino to avoid sub ground 
> state and explain the non radiative nature of the hydrino but regardless of 
> which view you take there is no need for combustion to create heat. Bonds are 
> restored to monatomic energy levels by the nature of the Casimir cavity in 
> all of these theories (Mills, Haisch, Heffner and my own). I would interpret 
> the SHC as the mundane combustion following the loading and acceleration of 
> monatomic ambient gases in the porous cavities of human bone. I think the SHC 
> is similar to the Japanese results with hydrogen gas diffused and allowed to 
> soak in Pd nano materials.
> Best Regards
> Fran
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:08 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)
> 
> Original Message-
> From: Horace Heffner 
> 
> I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration 
> in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it 
> exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust 
> free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment. This has 
> been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments 
> here is provided at:
> 
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf
> 
> 
> Yes, we have tossed around some wild ideas in the past.
> 
> This piece is a good and relatively non-controversial statement of a
> controversial situation - since it might portend or suggest the LENR factor.
> If the range of possible explanations and contributing factors were to be
> made more complete - then it could also mention several other details:
> 
> 1) Bifurcation from the mundane "initiator" - The interconnection (in many
> of the cases) with cigarettes, alcohol, obesity and season (usually winter).
> These would only explain the initiation of the phenomenon, and the
> "starved-flame" scenario which "should" then be self-quenching, or else
> consume the entire residence. Since that does not happen, we must move on to
> step two, which could then relate to LENR, or to 
> 
> 2) The hydrino, "hot hydrogen" (Langmuir) or alternative fractional-hydrogen
> explanation. Either or which can very likely depend on:
> 
> 3) A pre-exisiting genetic factor that is 

[Vo]:megalith levitation

[Frank Roarty]

This thread may seem unrelated to energy but in the same way reactionless
drives are contemplated with respect to Casimir cavities these legends may
have a kernel of truth. There is no moving linear differential motion of gas
atoms like the reactionless drive theories but there are trapped ambient
gases that I suspect become agitated via acoustic sources -singing, musical
devices or striking stones with a vibrating rod That would allow an elevated
pyramid block to be scooted a couple bow lengths or Easter island megaliths
to be positioned where we see them today(Coral castle might have been
magnetic agitation but still a calcium based stone). This wild speculation
would support a 4D perspective of time where the vacuum fluctuations inside
the calcium Casimir cavities allow the ambient gas to turn "fat" on the time
axis and even more so where large molecules are concerned. These "temporally
fat" molecules might stick out like needles in a pincushion suddenly turned
sideways snagging the temporal walls of the future and past like hanging
curtains. My ideas of time extends the coffee cup analogy of professor Ron
Mallet who is currently trying to build a time machine based on lasers and
coiled fibe. If the "present" represents a sufficiently small temporal
component then it may be possible to exploit the boundary by forcing
divergent inertial frames to occur inside one another.

My time perspective: My interpretation of 4D Space-time is from a future
perspective on the time axis looking down on the zero intersect with the 3D
spatial axis called the "present". This narrow time interval is only
measurable differentially since our time perception is based on relative
motion between the fabric of time though space. We can only measure
accumulated time dilation measured between different inertial frames such as
the twin paradox. C and Bohr radius always appear constant within our
inertial frame. At an atomic level a temporal perspective would show
orbitals forming halos of different radii while the vortii extending down to
the nucleii gets deeper or more shallow depending on acceleration. This is
much like the coffee analogy of Ron Mallet, the faster Ron stirs his coffee
the more the radius of the frothy center contracts but the vortex also
extends further down into the
coffee a proportional amount. Ron suggests we can only see the coffee
surface in our 3D world. I am suggesting the radius of the frothy center
represents the Bohr radius and always appears unchanged just like C appears
constant from within any inertial frames. The swirling vortex going down
into the coffee gets longer as the radius contracts to keep the volume
constant. I propose our time perception inside the "Present" is based on
this constant volume making it impossible for us to sense changes in
relative motion of spatial dimensions through time . The Present time frame
has a narrow temporal dimension that varies with acceleration. This narrow
dimesion will always remain negligible with respect to the spatial
dimensions from our perspective because our time perception is inherently
scaled by the volume of space moving through time. From the future
perspective the Present time frame would appear like a narrow ribbon that
gets wider or narrower with acceleration and flattens the material universe
down to an atomic plane where all mater is accessible from the time axis.
>From this perspective all matter, even that which we consider encased inside
other matter lies flat on a spatial axis with an unimpeded time axis above
and below it. Our 3D illusion of reality is much like an electron gun
tracing out a 2d image on a TV screen. From this perspective we exist in an
extremely narrow ribbon at the intersect of Future and Past. A single time
frame provides a vast quadric volume built upon the cubic volume of 3D
space. The electrons are forever trailing behind the nucleus like the tail
of a stretchable arrow with the nucleus at its tip sinking into the future
with their orbital energy constantly restored by virtual particles winking
into and out of existence as postulated by Puthoff in [1] "Ground state of
hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state". My suggestion is
these virtual particles are traveling through the present from the time axis
keeping the orbital "open" as they squeeze through our spatial dimension.
Regards
Fran

RE: [Vo]:Infinite Energey article using hydrino to eliminate nuclear waste

[Frank Roarty]

Nice! Sometimes I can't see the obvious, You are suggesting a formula to
make spent uranium into a skeletal catalyst? Already a great idea or did you
something even better in mind?
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Infinite Energey article using hydrino to eliminate
nuclear waste

In reply to  Frank Roarty's message of Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:29:50 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>I got my new issue of IE yesterday and was reading Ron Bourgoin article
>regarding the hydrino. He feels it is time to set aside theoretical issues
>of whether it is fractional state or relativistic hydrogen and just accept
>that something is obviously going on and that neutrons are being produced.
>He feels these neutrons can be harnessed to transmute nuclear waste. Is he
>correct? Would neutrons created inside the cavity be able to reach the
waste
>or would the waste have to somehow be reduced to enter the cavity?
>Regards
>Fran
..the solution is obvious...make the cavities in the waste so that the waste
forms the walls of the cavity. :)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html