[Vo]:Cédric Mannu wants to stay in touch on LinkedIn

[Cédric Mannu]

LinkedIn


   
Vortex-L,

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Cédric Mannu

Cédric Mannu
Co-founder at Eternite Productions 
Perpignan (Perpinyà) Area, France

Confirm that you know Cédric Mannu
https://www.linkedin.com/e/-iyihpo-gfjhd3xm-1g/isd/1806254918/rtRlJTFe/


 
-- 
(c) 2010, LinkedIn Corporation

[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Rich people jump the shark at the NBAA

[Jed Rothwell]

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) convention is in 
Atlanta. Here at Peachtree DeKalb Airport they are holding the static 
exhibit. Dozens of business jets parked and great crowds of people are 
milling around. If you are in the market to buy a slightly used Hawker 
jet there is one for sale just outside my window.


Security is tight so I cannot sneak in as I have done in years past. 
Other people the building have passes. They tell me there is a lot of 
interest but many "customers are holding back on purchase decisions 
until after the election." The biggest draw at the show is a new Boeing 
executive jet with all the amenities: a bedroom, an executive suite, and 
a hot tub. Yep, a hot tub. They heat the water in a large tank before 
takeoff, and when the airplane reaches cruising altitude they fill a hot 
tub. So these rich nitwits are flying around carrying a ton or more of 
hot water.


- Jed

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[DonEMitchell]

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Rich people jump the shark at the NBAA

[Jed Rothwell]

What do you know! This show is featured on the front of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/businessspecial3/21JETPLANES.html

Occasionally I am in the thick of things. In this case, without a pass.

This article describes some of the more outlandish luxuries, although 
not the hot tub. Quote: " Some designs feature multiple bedrooms, 
lounges, a dining room and even a movie theater. The retail price of the 
A380, by the way, is about $320 million. Add about $100 million more for 
a top-quality converted cabin."


- Jed

[Vo]:subscribe

[d...@groupkos.com]

On 10/21/2010 6:54 AM, DonEMitchell wrote:




-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10

Re: [Vo]:subscribe

[Terry Blanton]

Subscription requests need to be sent to

vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

T

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:10 AM, d...@groupkos.com  wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 6:54 AM, DonEMitchell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:59:56 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>I have two questions.
>
>1) What is the  actual mechanism that brings about fusion?
>
>With the BEC experiments that we know about, condensates like Rb can
>suddenly swing into strong attraction and implode. At Cornell, about
>two-thirds of condensed rubidium atoms "disappeared" from the experiment
>altogether. There was no local energy deficit and no report of an energy
>anomaly, but still the incident is "telling" as to the mechanism.

While I have speculated on nuclear reactions for this in the past, I don't
really think that is what is going on. I think that the remaining thermal energy
of the condensate ends up being concentrated upon some of the atoms, and these
rapidly leave the condensate. IOW they haven't really disappeared, just gone
outside the range of the detector in the experiment.

>
>This and other characteristics of Bose-Einstein condensates cannot be
>explained with any current theory. My hypothesis is that negative
>temperature induces actual fusion with the help of just such an attraction
>event when there is a local energy deficit, such as in a Casimir cavity ...
>where earlier there had been a few million sequential "first stage" events.
>The deficit will actually stimulate the attraction, and then the fusion. 

Charles Cagle would probably agree with you. :) He thinks that the electric
force reverses when a Bose condensate forms[*], i.e. that positive charges
attract.
>
>This permits the 'first stage' processes, like Casimir heating, to resume,
>with the excess energy coming in the form of UV light at 6.8 eV per
>relativistic bounce within the cavity, for instance. 

I'm not sure why you have this fascination with 6.08 eV?

>
>The reason that these initial processes can be so hard to replicate, is
>probably that there must be an expedited pathway to an actual nuclear
>reaction - but that reaction itself does not "have to be" fusion. 
>
>Thus everyone in the fizzix mainstream will tell you that there is no such
>phenomenon as 'Casimir heating' ... but is that because they have never seen
>it with a proper pathway - as with Rossi's nanopowder (presumably).
>
>If the Focardi/Rossi experiments are real and repeatable, then in that case
>it appears the "book balancing" reaction involves the conversion of nickel
>to copper via induced beta decay. Extreme levels of transmutation to Cu are
>documented, and since this class of reaction is far less energetic than
>deuterium fusion - a great abundance of copper, where there had been none
>before, is to be expected.

Could you point me to the paper? The main isotope of Ni is Ni-58, adding a
proton to this would give Cu-59, which decays to Ni-59 with a half life of 81
seconds. However Ni-59 has a half life of 76000 years, and should readily
accumulate.
Adding a deuteron to Ni-58 would give Cu-60 which has a half life of 23.7
minutes, and decays to stable Ni-60.

BTW a severely shrunken electron may increase the likelihood of electron capture
reactions by many orders of magnitude.

>
>My prediction is that when all is told, we will learn that the BLP
>sodium-hydride reaction produces copious magnesium - for the same underlying
>reason. It is LENR and nothing less.
>
>2) Why is the deficit always exactly equal to the fusion energy, and not of
>varying sizes?
>
>It isn't exact, in my opinion. There is probably a threshold level however.

Could you expand on "threshold" a little?

[*] More formally, that the force reverses direction when the De Broglie
wavelength in the CM frame exceeds the separation distance.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Papers by Mallove uploaded / list of papers

[Jed Rothwell]

[COPY 2. Messages do not seem to be getting through]

Christy Frazier kindly provided me with several papers by Eugene Mallove 
which I uploaded. See:


http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm

There are 11 papers by Mallove, and 1 by Rothwell & Mallove.

This one includes a transcript of some of the remarks made by Peter 
Zimmerman at the APS:


Mallove, E. and J. Rothwell,/The pseudoscientists of APS./Infinite 
Energy, 1999.*5*(25): p. 23.


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

I forgot about that. I do not think we transcribed the incendiary 
remarks made by Robert Park on that occasion. That is a shame because I 
expect the audiotape is long gone.


This one has mistaken claims by David Williams which were tired back in 
1994 and which are repeated today /ad nauseam/ by skeptics at Wikipedia 
and elsewhere:


Mallove, E.,/Cold Fusion: Still a Hot Topic?/Phys. Today, 1994.*March*: 
p. 93.


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

There are couple papers here about the work of the late Leslie Case.

Below is the list of papers by Mallove provided to me by Christy 
Frazier. The codes added to the first list are by me.


- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some of the papers in this list that I did not upload can be found here, 
along with papers by many other authors:


http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/readarticles.html

Codes are:

NEED = Let's upload this one
HAVE = We have already
NA = No applicable to cold fusion
OLD NEWS = Out of date news item


Editorial --- The Tip of an Iceberg, 1, 3, 3. NA

Editorial --- Stranger than Fiction, 2, 8, 3. NA

Carl Sagan and Cold Fusion, 3, 13/14, 86. NEED

Preliminary Assessment of the "Kinetic Furnace" of Kinetic Systems, 
Inc., 4, 19, 11. NA


Arthur C. Clarke: The Man Who "Predicted" Cold Fusion and Modern 
Alchemy, 4, 22, 9. NEED


CSICOP "Science Cops" at War with Cold Fusion, 4, 23, 54. NEED

Editorial --- Ten Years That Shook Physics, 4, 24, 3. NA

MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report, 4, 24, 66. HAVE

Press Responses to the Tenth Anniversary of Cold Fusion, 5, 25, 21. OLD 
NEWS


(With Bockris) Is the Occurrence of Cold Nuclear Reactions Widespread 
Throughout Nature? 5, 27, 29. NEED


Editorial --- The Bright Shining Hope, 5, 28, 4. NA

Editorial --- Aliens from the Basement, 5, 29, 4. NA

APS Meeting Hosts Second Cold Fusion Session, 6, 31, 21. OLD NEWS

The Triumph of Alchemy: Professor John Bockris and the Transmutation 
Crisis at Texas A&M, 6, 32, 9. HAVE


(With Rothwell) Summary Report on ICCF8: The Eighth International 
Conference on Cold Fusion, 6, 32, 25. OLD NEWS


Editorial --- Water: The Omnipresent Enigma, 6, 33, 4. NA

Book Review: Biological Transmutations (Kervran), 6, 34, 56. NEED

Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy, 6, 35, 4. NEED?

Book Review: Discovery of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon (Kozima), 6, 35, 
43. NEED


Encounter with a Cover-Up: Examining a Forbidden Report (Proceedings of 
the EPRI-NSF Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals), 6, 36, 
39. OLD NEWS (These proceedings have now been made public and can be 
downloaded at LENR-CANR.org)


The Mysteries and Myths of Heat: A Brief History of Hot and Cold, 7, 37, 
9. NA


Editorial --- The Einstein Myths: Of Space, Time, and Aether, 7, 38, 6. NA

Landmark Cold Fusion Patent Issued, 7, 41, 9. NA

New Sonofusion Claims in Science, 7, 42, 70. NA (We don't cover sonofusion)

Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion Meets in Beijing, China, 
8, 44, 8. OLD NEWS


The "Lifter" Phenomenon: Electrogravitics, Antigravity, and More, 8, 45, 
13. NA


"Free Energy" Device in Speedway Demonstration, 8, 45, 68. NA

Editorial --- The Implications of the "Big Bang," 8, 46, 7. NA

Editorial --- Cold Fusion Returns to MIT, 8, 47, 7. OLD NEWS

Editorial --- Nikola Tesla: Man of Three Centuries, 8, 48, 5. NA

Tesla and the Aether, 8, 48, 36. NA

Editorial --- The Heretic Life: Publishing Against the Grain, 9, 49, 5. NA?

Editorial --- Over-Unity: The Cold Fusion Canary Sings---and Flies! 9, 
50, 7. NA?


The Mystery and Legacy of Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine, 9, 51, 6. NA

Review of ICCF10, 9, 52, 9. OLD NEWS

Editorial --- The "New" Solar Power, 9, 53, 6. NA

Radioactivity Reborn, 9, 54, 10. NA?

New Energy and Early Aeronautics: The Perils and Rewards of Visionaries, 
9, 54, 51. NEED?


U.S. Department of Energy Commits to Re-Examine "Cold Fusion"---15 Years 
of Evidence for Excess Heat and LENR, 10, 55, 9. OLD NEWS


Hydrogen Fuel Cells and the "Hydrogen Economy," 10, 55, 13. NA

Book Review: The Synchronized Universe (Swanson), 10, 55, 39. NA

Intimations of Disaster: Glenn Seaborg, the Scientific Process, and the 
Origin of the "Cold Fusion War," 10, 55, 40. NEED


Why I Believe Cold Fusion Is Real (Historic Perspective on ICCF1), 14, 
80, 18 NEED







ARTICLES

Julian Schwinger: A Fond Remembrance, 1995, 1, 1, 9.
Alchemy Nightmare: Skeptic Finds Heavy Element Transmutation in Cold 
Fusion Experiment! 1995, 1, 2, 30.

The Magnetic Resonanc

Re: [Vo]:Papers by Mallove uploaded / list of papers

[Jed Rothwell]

By the fonts are haywire with this new e-mail program Mozilla 
Thunderbird. As a test, let me quote that message and tell it to use 
plain text only (no HTML). I guess that will delete formatting. It still 
appears in the draft . . .



[COPY 2. Messages do not seem to be getting through]

Christy Frazier kindly provided me with several papers by Eugene 
Mallove which I uploaded. See:


http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm

There are 11 papers by Mallove, and 1 by Rothwell & Mallove.

This one includes a transcript of some of the remarks made by Peter 
Zimmerman at the APS:


Mallove, E. and J. Rothwell,/The pseudoscientists of APS./[WAS ITALIC] 
Infinite Energy, 1999.*5 [WAS BOLD] *(25): p. 23.


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

. . . .



Below is the list of papers by Mallove provided to me by Christy 
Frazier. The codes added to the first list are by me.


- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some of the papers in this list that I did not upload can be found 
here, along with papers by many other authors:


http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/readarticles.html



Blah, blah, blah.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Papers by Mallove uploaded / list of papers

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:26 PM 10/21/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This one has mistaken claims by David Williams which were tired back 
in 1994 and which are repeated today ad nauseam by skeptics at 
Wikipedia and elsewhere:


Mallove, E., Cold Fusion: Still a Hot Topic? Phys. Today, 1994. March: p. 93.

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


Fascinating to read that letter to Physics Today. Mallove about 
nuclear products not being found commensurate with the excess heat. 
Huizenga, the same year, commented on Miles' announcement at ICCF 2 
(1991) and refers to the 1993 Miles paper. It was known, but Mallove 
writes as if that evidence did not exist. It is a strange lacuna.


In general, going over reviews of the field by "believers," I've 
found that heat/helium has been given short shrift, for the most part. Why?


The correlation cuts through all the BS about calorimetry error, 
helium leakage, and it presents a problem that appears not to be 
soluble without a nuclear reaction, and, when quantitative data 
solidified, it looks very, very strong that the reaction is some kind 
of dueterium fusion, because of the ration that Storms estimates as 
25 +/- 5 MeV. That would have to be much further off than 5 MeV to be 
anything but strong evidence for deuterium fusion.


And it goes way back. There has been additional confirmation in the 
last decade, but the basic work was all done before 2000, and the 
evidence was already strong when Huizenga commented on it. In a 
perhaps not-so-strange oversight, he neglected to notice what was 
already obvious in his book: Miles was confirming, in spades, Bush 
and Lagowski, who confirmed Fleischmann.


Huizenga's only refrain? There were no gamma rays, therefore there 
could not be any helium. When it came time for him to comment on Bush 
and Lagowski, he repeated the same canard: no gamma rays, therefore 
no helium. And, expecting that Miles would not be confirmed -- he saw 
that the result was "spectacular," he based this on branching ratio 
and no gamma rays.


In what must remain as a strange additional oversight, something 
repeated by others as well, Huizenga, on helium, notes that MIT et al 
didn't find helium. Of course, because they didn't find heat -- or 
only found a little heat, if the later analyses were correct -- that 
was to be expected!


Underneath this all was a very obvious assumption: that if there was 
a nuclear reaction -- Fleischmann had claimed, in his paper, not 
"fusion," but an "unknown nuclear reaction" -- it must be d-d fusion, 
because, again and again, he and other skeptics raised the known 
behavior of d-d fusion as if it were an argument against any "unknown 
nuclear reaction." This was all an argument from ignorance, taking 
the position that there could not possibly be any unknown nuclear 
reactions, but without actually stating that.


So Fleischmann's claim of an unknown reaction, that he had 
incautiously -- but correctly! -- called "fusion" at the press 
conference, was to be rejected, not because it was intrinsically 
impossible, but because it did not have the characteristics of a 
known reaction.


And if there is an unknown reaction, and if we reject the evidence 
showing it on the basis that it isn't a known reaction, we will never 
know about it.


The real question should have been, from the beginning, "What the 
hell is going on?" Mallove does approach this, but he leans on 
ridiculing the idea of it being a chemical reaction. Instead, a more 
sophisticated approach would have been to ask, if this is a chemical 
reaction, isn't it fascinating? We really should find out about a 
chemical reaction that behaves like this! Fine. Suppose it's not 
nuclear. What is it?


There was a strange parochialism in the physics community's response. 
"We are sure it's not nuclear physics, it's theoretically impossible, 
so ... it's bogus, and we don't care what it is, not our problem 
unless it's fusion, which it can't be, end of question." Yet, 
Fleischmann would have discovered, at the least, a truly remarkable 
energy storage mechanism, if that's what was going on.


The physicists gave up replication attempts before finding this 
"energy storage phenomenon," so they never did replicate, truly, and 
that should have been obvious, at least once there were other reports 
of excess heat.

[Vo]:Aether and the epo field - was: Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> I'm not sure why you have this fascination with 6.08 eV?

Robin, this is probably the most important point of all, in the hypothesis;
but the value is 6.8 not 6.08.

The "epo field" in a word *is* the "aether", as I read Hotson and others. It
is the most important field in the universe, but it is extra-dimensional to
us, unlike the others. When 'unification' is finally accomplished, it will
be via the epo field.

It is a stable lattice, consisting of matter and antimatter, i.e. basic
charge particle: electrons and positrons, which only inter-react with our
3-space in certain geometries that offer a dimensional gateway at the
interface. For example, the Casimir geometry and FRET.

This has been called the EPOLA (Electron-POsitron-LAttice) by Menahem
Simhony - from his version of Dirac, similar to Hotson's: 

http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm

The aether lattice has no residual charge bias effect, yet can account for
the totality of zero point energy (ZPE) effects by means of its own
dynamics, and might well account for the 'missing' dark matter and dark
energy of the Universe, the 90% which we do not see. Because it is not in
our 3-space, but can interact on the fringes, it can be useful to us - once
we understand the influence of dimensionality, and it is probably the basis
of all energy anomalies, including LENR. 

By far the most important energy value in the universe, especially for
finding alternatives to what we do see, would therefore be the binding
energy of this 'molecule' - 6.8 eV. You might even go so far as to call it
the available power quotient of aether.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Aether and the epo field - was: Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation

[Jones Beene]

Oops - should be 'atom' not 'molecule' in last paragraph, although that slip
does beg the question about a possible molecular or higher order structural
arrangements 

Is 'reciprocal space' one dimensional? 4-D? or descriptive of a linkage
between the two? are different principles of structural ordering found?


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> I'm not sure why you have this fascination with 6.08 eV?

Robin, this is probably the most important point of all, in the hypothesis;
but the value is 6.8 not 6.08.

The "epo field" in a word *is* the "aether", as I read Hotson and others. It
is the most important field in the universe, but it is extra-dimensional to
us, unlike the others. When 'unification' is finally accomplished, it will
be via the epo field.

It is a stable lattice, consisting of matter and antimatter, i.e. basic
charge particles: electrons and positrons, which only inter-react with our
3-space in certain geometries that offer a dimensional gateway at the
interface. For example, the Casimir geometry and FRET.

This has been called the EPOLA (Electron-POsitron-LAttice) by Menahem
Simhony - from his version of Dirac, similar to Hotson's: 

http://www.epola.co.uk/introduction/precis/precis.htm


The aether lattice has no residual charge bias effect, yet can account for
the totality of zero point energy (ZPE) effects by means of its own
dynamics, and might well account for the 'missing' dark matter and dark
energy of the Universe, the 90% which we do not see. Because it is not in
our 3-space, but can interact on the fringes, it can be useful to us - once
we understand the influence of dimensionality, and it is probably the basis
of all energy anomalies, including LENR. 

By far the most important energy value in the universe, especially for
finding alternatives to what we do see, would therefore be the binding
energy of this 'molecule' - 6.8 eV. You might even go so far as to call it
the available power quotient of aether.

Jones

[Vo]:Fwd: Lane doing good part 4 of video series put

[fznidarsic]

-Original Message-
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 4:40 pm
Subject: Fwd: Lane doing good part 4 of video series put








-Original Message-
From: fznidar...@aol.com
To: vort...@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 11:13 am
Subject: Lane doing good part 4 of video series put



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwkFDzYPG4I