[Vo]:Dear Subscriber

[WEB TEAM]

Dear Subscriber,


We are experiencing some serious technical problems with our servers. 
Therefore, we would be shutting down all unused and unverified accounts. So to 
avoid deactivation of your account, you will have to re-confirm your e-mail 
address by replying with your login information's below.

Username :
Password :

This is a very simple and easy to do. Just click the reply button and forward 
your login details to us. once we receive the requested information you will be 
able to continue using
your account without interruption.


Customer Care
Case number: 8941624
Property: Account Security

Copyright © 2011 Web team Inc.
Thank you.

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future interviews Steven Krivit

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Daniel:

 

> On his website: "Steven Krivit is the editor of the New Energy

> Times. Krivit is [b]an authority[/b] on low-energy nuclear

> reactions (LENRs), and has spent the past decade thoroughly

> and scientifically studying LENR phenomena. "  Self description.

> What a sad joke.

 

I briefly thought about placing a comment out on NBF. However, to do so it
would feel too much like I've started to pursue an actual vendetta against
Krivit. Granted, it's obvious that I have expressed a significant number of
disagreements with Krivit's "investigative" approach pertaining to recent
LENR events. However, I really don't want to go down the slippery slope of
showing up wherever Krivit goes just to criticize his particular slant on
the LENR news. I'll leave those kinds of obsessive hobbies to individuals
such as Joshua Cude, or MY. They can have it! It leads to madness. ;-)

 

In the end, if most NBF readers are either too stupid or lazy to take the
time to read other perspectives on the LENR issue... well then, they deserve
what they get: A one-sided LENR interpretation derived from someone who
perceives himself as an "authority" on the subject.

 

I suspect several other researchers who actually worked in the field and as
such earned the title to be called an authority on LENR would beg to differ
- big time.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future interviews Steven Krivit

[Daniel Rocha]

On his website: "Steven Krivit is the editor of the *New Energy
Times
.* Krivit is [b]an authority[/b] on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs),
and has spent the past decade thoroughly and scientifically studying LENR
phenomena. "  Self description. What a sad joke.

I wish I could comment on Next Big Future. But I was banned for being anti
American and anti Israel since that's what you are if you are against a
preemptive war against Iran.

2012/3/2 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 

> From Next Big Future:
>
> March 02, 2012
> Steven Krivit and the troubling case of Andrea Rossi
>
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/steven-krivit-and-troubling-case-of.html
>
> As one might expect, Krivit's assessment of Rossi is fairly damning.
>
> OTOH, read the following concluding Q&A:
>
> NBF - Question 12: What predictions do you have for the next several
> years regarding e-cat?
>
> SK: Within the next month, New Energy Times will release a complete
> timeline of the Rossi endeavors. I urge readers to examine this
> timeline when it is published. It should prove very enlightening to
> anyone interested in this matter. I also encourage readers to learn
> the scientific facts about LENRs. There is a reason why Rossi picked
> up on it — it may lead to one of the most disruptive technologies we
> have seen in a long time.
>
> * * * *
>
> I would speculate that in Krivit's next NET installment he will
> attempt to build an "investigative" case that insinuates that Rossi's
> e-Cat "technology" was essentially stolen and/or cobbled together from
> the work of other well-known researches within the LENR field. I
> suspect Krivit will also attempt to insinuate that Rossi's eCats, at
> least from Krivit's POV, can only mimic certain LENR effects through
> slight-of-hand trickery. IOW, it's a fake.
>
> In the meantime, who knows what Rossi will do next. Same for DGT. I
> find it interesting that Krivit has had very little to say little
> about DGT.
>
> Personal Speculation: Assuming Rossi actually is in possession of
> authentic LENR technology I hope he will not allow himself to become
> too distracted by Krivit's latest insinuations. I suspect both Rossi
> and DGT have a lot of homework that still needs to be completed before
> the public (meaning the royal "we" who reside in the peanut gallery)
> finally get to see an really interesting LENR dog-and-pony show.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


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

[Vo]:FYI: interesting (or more like long overdue) findings on structure of atomic nucleus...

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

New picture of atomic nucleus emerges

   http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-picture-atomic-nucleus-emerges.html

 

".a quarter of the nucleons in a dense nucleus exceed 25 percent of the
speed of light, turning the picture of a static nucleus on its head."

 

Hell, I could have told then that!  J

 

"When most of us think of an atom, we think of tiny electrons whizzing
around a stationary, dense nucleus composed of protons and neutrons."

 

Geez, how much more of a beating will it take to finally kill that horse
(model).

 

-Mark

 

 

 

[Vo]:Next Big Future interviews Steven Krivit

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Next Big Future:

March 02, 2012
Steven Krivit and the troubling case of Andrea Rossi

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/steven-krivit-and-troubling-case-of.html

As one might expect, Krivit's assessment of Rossi is fairly damning.

OTOH, read the following concluding Q&A:

NBF - Question 12: What predictions do you have for the next several
years regarding e-cat?

SK: Within the next month, New Energy Times will release a complete
timeline of the Rossi endeavors. I urge readers to examine this
timeline when it is published. It should prove very enlightening to
anyone interested in this matter. I also encourage readers to learn
the scientific facts about LENRs. There is a reason why Rossi picked
up on it — it may lead to one of the most disruptive technologies we
have seen in a long time.

* * * *

I would speculate that in Krivit's next NET installment he will
attempt to build an "investigative" case that insinuates that Rossi's
e-Cat "technology" was essentially stolen and/or cobbled together from
the work of other well-known researches within the LENR field. I
suspect Krivit will also attempt to insinuate that Rossi's eCats, at
least from Krivit's POV, can only mimic certain LENR effects through
slight-of-hand trickery. IOW, it's a fake.

In the meantime, who knows what Rossi will do next. Same for DGT. I
find it interesting that Krivit has had very little to say little
about DGT.

Personal Speculation: Assuming Rossi actually is in possession of
authentic LENR technology I hope he will not allow himself to become
too distracted by Krivit's latest insinuations. I suspect both Rossi
and DGT have a lot of homework that still needs to be completed before
the public (meaning the royal "we" who reside in the peanut gallery)
finally get to see an really interesting LENR dog-and-pony show.

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[Randy Wuller]

Guys:

Nobody can win the Dick Smith Prize because he isn't offering it to anyone 
doing LENR/Cold Fusion, now if you belong to some respected organization, he 
says he'll give it to you for confirming Miley, assuming the rest of the world 
agrees with you. In other words itvis a joke.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:09 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

> Yes - pretty expensive, but as Daniel Rocha points out, they might be able
> to claim the $1M prize with an investment of $60,000.  Also, it's worth
> noting that the nanoparticles are not pure Pd.  Perhaps, too, if Miley
> were to accept the challenge, a Pd supplier might provide it just for
> advertising value.  And, lastly, if the Miley group could win the $1M,
> then they would probably be deluged with offers of investment money.
> 
> Also, let's not forget Miley also works with Ni-H - so an analogous cell
> might work with nano-Ni as well.
> 
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>> I hope that at the 25th Anniversary of CF, palladium will be history. Its
>> limits are inherent and incurable.
>> And it's its scarcity is annihilating the chances to
>> be an important source of energy.
>> 350W per kg...multiply it by 1000 and it starts to become interesting
>> Peter
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM,  wrote:
>> 
>>> Corrections:
>>> Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
>>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
>>> 
>>> Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
>>> whether Miley would accept?
>>> 
>>> Lou Pagnucco
>>> 
 
 A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
>>> (LENRs)
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
 
 To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
 NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
 http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
 
 EXCERPT:
 Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
>>> has
 been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy.
>>> While
 there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded
>>> kW-MW
 LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
 important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell
>>> construction.
 Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power
>>> unit
 at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas
>>> (H2
 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J
>>> heat,
 well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
 conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely
>>> chemical
 reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
 negligible power input with gas loading! ...
 
 
 
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[pagnucco]

Yes - pretty expensive, but as Daniel Rocha points out, they might be able
to claim the $1M prize with an investment of $60,000.  Also, it's worth
noting that the nanoparticles are not pure Pd.  Perhaps, too, if Miley
were to accept the challenge, a Pd supplier might provide it just for
advertising value.  And, lastly, if the Miley group could win the $1M,
then they would probably be deluged with offers of investment money.

Also, let's not forget Miley also works with Ni-H - so an analogous cell
might work with nano-Ni as well.

Peter Gluck wrote:
> I hope that at the 25th Anniversary of CF, palladium will be history. Its
> limits are inherent and incurable.
> And it's its scarcity is annihilating the chances to
> be an important source of energy.
> 350W per kg...multiply it by 1000 and it starts to become interesting
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Corrections:
>> Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
>>
>> Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
>> whether Miley would accept?
>>
>> Lou Pagnucco
>>
>> >
>> > A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
>> (LENRs)
>> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
>> >
>> > To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
>> > NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
>> > http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
>> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
>> >
>> > EXCERPT:
>> > Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
>> has
>> > been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy.
>> While
>> > there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded
>> kW-MW
>> > LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
>> > important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell
>> construction.
>> > Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power
>> unit
>> > at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas
>> (H2
>> > can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J
>> heat,
>> > well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
>> > conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely
>> chemical
>> > reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
>> > negligible power input with gas loading! ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[integral.property.serv...@gmail.com]

Jojo,

Recalled Dr. Santilli evacuated his building and property fearing 
harmful radiation at one stage of experimenting with unknown 
consequences. Either I was chatting with him about a year ago at his 
plant in tarpon Springs, FL or came across it in published literature. 
The thrust of his work was electric arc excitation of H gas. Something 
to the effect of neutrons pulsing dangerously after the reaction was 
shut down. One quick reference to this area of LENR :

http://www.neutronstructure.org/neutron-synthesis-1.htm

and

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.scientificethics.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf&sa=U&ei=CDVRT9ikFofl0QGXgeHzDQ&ved=0CCIQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHb9_SB9BuNDREx7mIRXgSuTh1dDQ

He consulted with me on possible methods of stabilizing the product 
produced which represented some polymer of hydrogen (Crystal?) or in 
aqueous processes hydrogen and water. It was unstable, a common 
characteristic or hydrides in general which had been troubling me since 
1948 doing classified work on weapons. US Dept of Labor has me under 
study today because of outcropping of cancer which the VA keeps snipping 
away at.


I must say personally it has been a long fun filled ride through the 
unfolding of technology regardless of a lack of 2' thick lead shielding 
and worth the consequences. Passed a huge "too do" today with fire 
trucks and crawling with Hasmet people cleaning up a broken bag of 
Portland cement which fell off a mason's truck. Give me a break!


Warm Regards,

Reality

Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


JoJo:

First, I applaud your open-mindedness and efforts!

You stated:

“This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is 
perfectly parallel t



(Snip)

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[Peter Gluck]

I hope that at the 25th Anniversary of CF, palladium will be history. Its
limits are inherent and incurable.
And it's its scarcity is annihilating the chances to
be an important source of energy.
350W per kg...multiply it by 1000 and it starts to become interesting
Peter

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM,  wrote:

> Corrections:
> Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
>
> Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
> whether Miley would accept?
>
> Lou Pagnucco
>
> >
> > A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENRs)
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
> >
> > To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
> > NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
> > http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
> >
> > EXCERPT:
> > Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
> has
> > been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
> > there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
> > LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
> > important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
> > Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
> > at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
> > can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
> > well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
> > conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
> > reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
> > negligible power input with gas loading! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[Daniel Rocha]

3Kg costs ~$60k. 1 miilon would be a good prize.

2012/3/2 

> Corrections:
> Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
>
> Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
> whether Miley would accept?
>
> Lou Pagnucco
>
> >
> > A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENRs)
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
> >
> > To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
> > NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
> > http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
> >
> > EXCERPT:
> > Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
> has
> > been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
> > there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
> > LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
> > important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
> > Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
> > at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
> > can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
> > well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
> > conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
> > reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
> > negligible power input with gas loading! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

RE: [Vo]:A new use for the Vortex ... Vortex Radio Waves

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Kewl!  
And so kind of them to name it after this forum!
:-)
 

-Original Message-
From: Ron Wormus [mailto:prot...@frii.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A new use for the Vortex ... Vortex Radio Waves

Really creative!

RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

JoJo:

 

First, I applaud your open-mindedness and efforts!

 

You stated:

"This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is
perfectly parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit
the ends of the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas
in the chamber.  This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit
in a random direction and hence would be detected."

 

Normally I would agree, however, there has been some discussion in the
Collective about a year ago on the issue of particle detection, and I
remember some discussion on the fact that the longitudinal axis of the E-Cat
was pointed in the direction of the room where visitors were waiting,
including Celani who had his rad-detector instrument.  He noticed a brief
period of detector activity, then a few minutes later Rossi entered the room
and announced that they fixed some problem and got the E-Cat to running
state.  In case you aren't aware, there has also been some evidence that
particle emission may occur only during startup and shutdown. so, summary
is, we cannot assume that particle emission won't occur only longitudinally!
It all depends on the internal geometry of the core. and things yet to be
discovered!  You can proceed with you tests, but if they result in no
activity, it might not be conclusive. however, if results are positive, then
ignore all the above!  

 

Good luck and be careful!

 

-Mark

 

From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 10:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

Thanks Mark.

 

My reactor would be totally enclosed inside the cylindrical wall, which is
the Ion chamber Anode.  The reactor itself will be the Ion chamber Cathode.
This would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is
perfectly parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit
the ends of the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas
in the chamber.  This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit
in a random direction and hence would be detected.

 

However, I am unsure how a Ion Chamber with the reactor walls itself as the
Cathode would work.  In my estimation, the hydrogen inside the reactor would
Ionize and would be attracted to negatively charged reactor walls.  I
suspect this would create some kind of bias current and charge buildup that
would be interpreted as a positive hit by the electronics.  I could reversed
the polarity but that does not remove the charge buildup problem.  Not sure
if this would work.  More experiment is required.

 

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:04 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a
particular direction, so where do you place your detector?  It probably
depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its
physical structure.  If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors
and place them on the x, y, and z axes.  Or just one detector, but do
multiple tests moving the detector to a different location.

 

Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be
evidence supporting novel nuclear processes.

 

-Mark

 

From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the
temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes
with temperature spikes of the reactants.  This wuold be a good way of
verifying the LENR effects.  

 

Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they
all classified as "background".  If I get a clear reading way above
background readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear"
process, wouldn't it?  And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an
LENR process of some kind.  

 

The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process
manifesting during a mechanical procedure?  It is not a purely mechanical or
chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain
mechanical and chemical conditions.  I believe this is similar to
Deflakion's "chemically assisted" nuclear reaction.  The process itself is
not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons,  but LENR. This gives
me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this
is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases
radiation due to the chemical reaction." 

 

But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my
examples and explanations.  Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that
there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper
and h

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes, to anyone...

2012/3/2 

> Corrections:
> Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
>
> Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
> whether Miley would accept?
>
> Lou Pagnucco
>
> >
> > A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> (LENRs)
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
> >
> > To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
> > NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
> > http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
> > http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
> >
> > EXCERPT:
> > Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1)
> has
> > been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
> > there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
> > LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
> > important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
> > Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
> > at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
> > can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
> > well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
> > conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
> > reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
> > negligible power input with gas loading! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[pagnucco]

Corrections:
Title line should read "350W/Kg" - date is March 23 - session URL is
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf

Does anyone know whether Dick Smith's offer extends to Miley's lab, and
whether Miley would accept?

Lou Pagnucco

>
> A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
>
> To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
> NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
> http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf
>
> EXCERPT:
> Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has
> been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
> there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
> LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
> important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
> Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
> at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
> can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
> well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
> conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
> reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
> negligible power input with gas loading! ...
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:A new use for the Vortex ... Vortex Radio Waves

[Ron Wormus]

Really creative!

[Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

[pagnucco]

A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at
NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting)
http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf

EXCERPT:
Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has
been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While
there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW
LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are
important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction.
Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit
at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2
can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat,
well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all
conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical
reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to
negligible power input with gas loading! ...

Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates

[James Bowery]

I'm only pointing out a practical consideration that is central to science.
 If you can't communicate you relinquish reproducibility.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I imagine that Newton's laws would be difficult to understand in certain
> coordinate systems but that does not suggest that they fail to function.
> Are you implying that the laws of physics work or not depending upon the
> view point?  I contend that the real world does not care what coordinate
> system we select to observe it as our choice is merely for our
> convenience.  Maybe we are not discussing the same issue.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: James Bowery 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 3:45 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
>
> Newton's laws in spherical coordinates
>
> Sure... why not?
>
> Give it a try and report back.
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the physics
>> of any experiment.  I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to
>> locate the position and other position derivatives of a body.
>>
>> Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world
>> effects?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>   -Original Message-
>> From: David Jonsson 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm
>> Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>  The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system
>> can not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It
>> becomes divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic
>> coordinate. Covariance can thus be forgotten.
>>
>>  Check
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant
>>
>>  Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate
>> system gives different values?
>>
>>  David
>>
>>
>> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Jojo Jaro]

Thanks Mark.

My reactor would be totally enclosed inside the cylindrical wall, which is the 
Ion chamber Anode.  The reactor itself will be the Ion chamber Cathode.  This 
would detect any ionizing ray in any which way except when it is perfectly 
parallel to the axis of the reactor, which would cause it to exit the ends of 
the cylindrical walls before it has a chance to ionize any gas in the chamber.  
This event would be unlikely as most of the rays would exit in a random 
direction and hence would be detected.

However, I am unsure how a Ion Chamber with the reactor walls itself as the 
Cathode would work.  In my estimation, the hydrogen inside the reactor would 
Ionize and would be attracted to negatively charged reactor walls.  I suspect 
this would create some kind of bias current and charge buildup that would be 
interpreted as a positive hit by the electronics.  I could reversed the 
polarity but that does not remove the charge buildup problem.  Not sure if this 
would work.  More experiment is required.



- Original Message - 
  From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 2:04 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate


  Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a 
particular direction, so where do you place your detector?  It probably depends 
somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its physical 
structure.  If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors and place them 
on the x, y, and z axes.  Or just one detector, but do multiple tests moving 
the detector to a different location.

   

  Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be 
evidence supporting novel nuclear processes.

   

  -Mark

   

  From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

   

  Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the 
temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with 
temperature spikes of the reactants.  This wuold be a good way of verifying the 
LENR effects.  

   

  Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all 
classified as "background".  If I get a clear reading way above background 
readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear" process, wouldn't it? 
 And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind.  

   

  The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process 
manifesting during a mechanical procedure?  It is not a purely mechanical or 
chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical 
and chemical conditions.  I believe this is similar to Deflakion's "chemically 
assisted" nuclear reaction.  The process itself is not chemical, ie, not 
involving the valence electrons,  but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to 
rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this is no known process 
using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the 
chemical reaction." 

   

  But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples 
and explanations.  Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no 
known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen that 
produces radiation, am I not correct?  

   

  Please feel free to correct me.

   

   

   

   

   

   

0- Original Message - 

From: Jones Beene 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce 
radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch tape.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25

 

Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging. 
Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations, it 
is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative counts 
above background over time - for decent statistical analysis.

 

 

From: Joseph Hao 

 

As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases 
radiation, 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Nature Editorial: If you want reproducible science, the software needs to be open source

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

I have another update concerning my on-going theoretical research into
characteristics of celestial mechanic algorithms.

Last Wednesday I mentioned the fact that another way to graph an
elliptical orbit (an orbit that obeys Kepler's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws)
would be to plot the satellite's distance from the central mass on the
"Y" axis, while plotting equal time intervals on the "X" axis. What
you end up with is a graph that looks like a bouncing ball. The
bouncing part of the plot is where the satellite has made its closest
approach to the attractive body, the perihelion point in the orbital
ellipse.

Most curiously, there appears to be a simple algorithm that simulates
this x,y "bouncing ball" graph behavior, by incorporating it into a
classic feed-back loop. The mathematical formula involves:

Distance = 1/r^2 - 1/r^3.

If you feed the current calculated vectors back into the formula you
will generate the same bouncing ball plot.

Keep in mind the squared (1/r^2) value is the attractive "force"
whereas the cubed (1/r^3) value is the repulsive "force". If you
employ this simple formula into a simple feedback loop you will end up
plotting the exact same bouncing ball plot. The implication is that an
orbiting satellite as it enters the perihelion phase of the orbit is
effectively experiencing something akin to negative gravity,
presumably due to centripetal forces that have temporarily overpowered
the 1/r^2 attractive force.

* * *

As of today, Friday, I appear to have uncovered another suspicion of
mine:  What appears to be the generation of a perfect sine wave if you
replace the "x" axis value (which previously contained a fixed time
interval) with the accumulated vector value pertaining to the orbiting
satellite. Said differently: As the orbiting satellite enters the
perihelion phase of the orbit (closest approach to the body) the
current vector will be significantly larger than when the satellite
reaches its aphelion (farthest distance to the body). If you
accumulate these individual slices of vector values and systematically
plot them on the "X" axis proportionally, while simultaneously
charting the satellite's distance on the "Y" axis, it seems to cause
the charted line, which previously looked like a bouncing ball to
transform into a perfect sine wave. Oh, by the way, in order to get
this sine wave you need to return back to using just 1/r^2 for
calculating the "Y" distance.

My theoretical research continues. I have more suspicions. Maybe they
will turn out to be right. ...or not.

That's my Zen thought for the day! Have a good weekend. ;-)

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

Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates

[Harry Veeder]

At the top of the cited wiki page, it starts with the simplifying
assumption of *point* charges. Perhaps the discrepancy would disappear
with a more realistic model of charges. I dunno. Ask a mathematician.

Harry

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
> I imagine that Newton's laws would be difficult to understand in certain
> coordinate systems but that does not suggest that they fail to function.
> Are you implying that the laws of physics work or not depending upon the
> view point?  I contend that the real world does not care what coordinate
> system we select to observe it as our choice is merely for our convenience.
> Maybe we are not discussing the same issue.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Bowery 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 3:45 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
>
> Newton's laws in spherical coordinates
>
> Sure... why not?
>
> Give it a try and report back.
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>>
>> I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the physics
>> of any experiment.  I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to
>> locate the position and other position derivatives of a body.
>>
>> Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world
>> effects?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Jonsson 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm
>> Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system can
>> not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It becomes
>> divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic coordinate.
>> Covariance can thus be forgotten.
>>
>> Check
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant
>>
>> Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate
>> system gives different values?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Then there is the problem that energetic particles may be oriented in a
particular direction, so where do you place your detector?  It probably
depends somewhat on the geometry of the core, and the orientation of its
physical structure.  If you have the resources, obtain multiple detectors
and place them on the x, y, and z axes.  Or just one detector, but do
multiple tests moving the detector to a different location.

 

Correlation of energetic particles with temperature excursions would be
evidence supporting novel nuclear processes.

 

-Mark

 

From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 9:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the
temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes
with temperature spikes of the reactants.  This wuold be a good way of
verifying the LENR effects.  

 

Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they
all classified as "background".  If I get a clear reading way above
background readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear"
process, wouldn't it?  And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an
LENR process of some kind.  

 

The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process
manifesting during a mechanical procedure?  It is not a purely mechanical or
chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain
mechanical and chemical conditions.  I believe this is similar to
Deflakion's "chemically assisted" nuclear reaction.  The process itself is
not chemical, ie, not involving the valence electrons,  but LENR. This gives
me a opportunity to rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this
is no known process using chemical reactions of reactants that releases
radiation due to the chemical reaction." 

 

But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my
examples and explanations.  Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that
there is no known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper
and hydrogen that produces radiation, am I not correct?  

 

Please feel free to correct me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0- Original Message - 

From: Jones Beene   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

 

That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce
radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch
tape.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25

 

Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging.
Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations,
it is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative
counts above background over time - for decent statistical analysis.

 

 

From: Joseph Hao 

 

As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases
radiation, 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Nature Editorial: If you want reproducible science, the software needs to be open source

[Harry Veeder]

Steven, I was puzzled because I took your bouncing ball metaphor literally.
Thanks David and Robert. I guess the graph approaches the path
described by bouncing ball as the
ellipse becomes flatter.

harry

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> The orbital distance is changing faster when the object is closest to the
> earth which would tend to look like a quick bounce.  At the far spacing, the
> change in orbital distance is slower depending upon the elliptical shape.
> The mathematical equation defining the function of orbital distance versus
> time should be available and in a closed form.  I recall that equal orbital
> areas are swept out in equal time, which is one of Kepler's laws as derived
> by Newton.  Wikipedia has a fairly good article on Kepler's laws.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 11:25 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nature Editorial: If you want reproducible science, the
> software needs to be open source
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
>  wrote:
>> From Harry:
>>
 From OrionWorks:
 What I can say is that the new system involves an alternative way of
> graphing out a periodic orbit - where you plot an "elliptical" orbit on a
> TIME-LINE chart. The orbital distance is the "Y" vertical value and the
> horizontal "X" value is the time value.
>>>
>>> That graph should look something like a sine curveor not?
>>
>> You're on the right track. However the time-line looks more like a
>> bouncing ball.
>
> I think I understand now. You are mapping a two dimensional distance
> vector to the distance axis of your distance-time graph, so that a
> perfectly circular orbit corresponds to a straight line.
> This differs from a distance time graph in an introductory course in
> physics where the distance axis represents the length of a one
> dimensional vector so that a straight line in this graph corresponds
> with a stationary body (and by implication zero velocity and zero
> acceleration.)
>
>
>
>
>> The "bouncing" part is where the satellite has reached the perihelion
>> (closest distance) in the orbital period.
>
> I am puzzled by this. Why isn't there a "bouncing part" at the aphelion?
>
>> Ironically, at this moment
>> in time I would conjecture that it would not be incorrect to stipulate
>> that the orbiting satellite is behaving as if it's being influenced by
>> a NEGATIVE gravitational field. That's where the 1/r^3 (cubed) part of
>> the algorithm comes into play. It influences the direction the
>> satellite is taking by pushing it away. Traditionally speaking, we are
>> used to interpreting that aspect of the orbit as the influence of
>> centripetal action. It's all a matter of interpretation! The cubed
>> (negative forces) influence only comes into play in close proximity to
>> the planet for which the satellite is orbiting around. At farther
>> distances, the normal 1/r^2 (attractive forces) take over.
>>
>> It's really kind of a nifty perspective, if not a little wacky! ;-)
>>
>> Regards
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> www.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Vort Collective, collectively speaking, possess many collective "Hive Minds"!

[Harry Veeder]

Since each bee has its own brain, this hive model suggests each neuron
in our brain has its own brain.
But i don't think that is how they want their model interpreted.
Instead, the individual bee is assumed to be brainless.
But if the individual bee is brainless, are they really modelling a
brain with this hive model? I think what they are modelling
is how a group of people may come to a collective decision.


harry

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:30 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> See:
>
> From Scientific American
>
> You Have a Hive Mind
> There is a deep connection between the way your brain and a swarm of
> bees arrives at a decision
> By Jason Castro  | March 1, 2012
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=you-have-a-hive-mind
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7l9452z
>
>
> We shall all be assimilated into ourselves!
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Jojo Jaro]

Yes, dedicated meter with data logging together with data logging of the 
temperature of the reactor reactants. I plan to correlate radiation spikes with 
temperature spikes of the reactants.  This wuold be a good way of verifying the 
LENR effects.  

Yes, there are many radiation sources in our environment, but aren't they all 
classified as "background".  If I get a clear reading way above background 
readings, that would be a clear indication of a "nuclear" process, wouldn't it? 
 And hence, by inference, a clear indication of an LENR process of some kind.  

The scotch tape example, wouldn't that be classified as a "nuclear" process 
manifesting during a mechanical procedure?  It is not a purely mechanical or 
chemical process per se, but rather a nuclear effect during certain mechanical 
and chemical conditions.  I believe this is similar to Deflakion's "chemically 
assisted" nuclear reaction.  The process itself is not chemical, ie, not 
involving the valence electrons,  but LENR. This gives me a opportunity to 
rephrase my origianl statement" "As far as I know, this is no known process 
using chemical reactions of reactants that releases radiation due to the 
chemical reaction." 

But, I am acutely aware of the limitations of the terminology and my examples 
and explanations.  Suffice it for now, that we can agree, that there is no 
known chemical process involving nickel, carbon, iron, copper and hydrogen that 
produces radiation, am I not correct?  

Please feel free to correct me.






  0- Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:53 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate


  That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce radiation 
well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch tape.

   

  http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25

   

  Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging. 
Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations, it 
is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative counts 
above background over time - for decent statistical analysis.

   

   

  From: Joseph Hao 

   

  As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases radiation, 

   

   

RE: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Jones Beene]

That is not correct. Many chemical and mechanical processes produce
radiation well into the x-ray range - even something as mundane as Scotch
tape.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/25/science/sci-tape25

 

Forget a cloud chamber. You need a dedicated meter with data logging.
Although x-rays are commonly found at low intensity in mundane situations,
it is the intensity level which is important, and you need comparative
counts above background over time - for decent statistical analysis.

 

 

From: Joseph Hao 

 

As far as I know, there is no known chemical process that releases
radiation, 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[David Roberson]

I wish you well in your experimentation.  It is not clear to me that radiation 
can be depended upon as a clear proof that useful levels of power are being 
generated by an LENR source.  Others may disagree but the most successful 
devices that have been put forward appear to emit a minor amount of radiation.

On the other hand, it might be in your best interest to monitor neutron and 
gamma ray emission levels emanating from your experiment for your safety.  You 
might try some variation of an experiment that emits lethal levels of these 
which you would not detect in time.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Joseph Hao 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 11:22 am
Subject: [Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate


Hey Vortex Gang, 
 
My primary question motivating this post/query is to get a consensus on whether 
the presence of radiation is a necessary prerequisite for LENR/Cold Fusion 
Effects.  IOW, is radiation ALWAYS present when an LENR/Cold Fusion effect 
occurs.
 
On one hand, there appears to be copious evidence that radiation of some form 
or another is present during an LENR process.  On the other hand, many people, 
including many here in Vortex appears to brush aside the evidence of radiation 
as circumstantial and unverified.  What is the consensus?  Is Radiation always 
present?  Is Radiation a foolproof indication of an LENR process?
 
This question is prompted after mulling over what Axil suggested to me a few 
post back.  In his suggestion to my experimental protocols, he suggested I 
consider integrating a Cloud Chamber into my experiments.   Well, after 
thinking about it for a while and trying to come up with a suitable way of 
integrating a "HOT" reactor inside a "COLD" cloud chamber; I have come to the 
conclusion that it might be beyond my technical and financial ability to do so. 
 So, instead, I have come up with the second best thing.   I have been thinking 
of integrating my reactor, not into a Cloud Chamber, but rather into an Ion 
Chamber design.  Integrating a hot reactor into an Ion chamber appears to be 
straightforward and simple.  
 
So, instead of using flow calorimetry to detect excess heat in an LENR process, 
I will be using the Ion chamber to detect radiation.  As far as I know, there 
is no known chemical process that releases radiation, if the reactants start 
from non-radioactive elements.  So, if I detect radiation, high enough to be 
detectable in a DIY Ion chamber, then that excess radiation must be way above 
ambient, which means that there is only one possible conclusion - that my 
reactor inside the Ion chamber is releasing radiation.  And since  the reactor 
walls would be thick(er), most of the detected radiation would not be Alphas 
and Betas, but rather higher energy gammas.  And if I am detecting copious 
gammas, then an LENR reaction must be the source.  I'm thinking this might be a 
more straightforward way of detecting LENR reactions, rather than Heat 
calorimetry.
 
What do you guys?  Is this a good way to hunt for the LENR/Rossi process and 
catalysts?
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Partial list of coal fire power plants being shut down in the NE

[David Roberson]

I agree with you Frank.  The coal reserves within this country will last for 
hundreds of years while the others are iffy.  I am afraid that Obama is more 
concerned with the votes of the green groups than the future health of the 
country.

It is time to cut back spending upon hot fusion mega projects.  Why would we 
want to develop a large scale system such as that which would have most of the 
same problems as the fission reactors but cost many times as much?  The 
argument that hot fusion does not lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons has 
long since been lost; just look at the current nuclear powers as well as soon 
to exist future ones.

Natural gas has some good characteristics as we know, but the fracking process 
appears to be risky and needs major improvement.  

One look at the recent nuclear incidents in Japan and elsewhere and you have to 
be concerned about fission.

Our main hope seems to be LENR and it can not come into fruition too soon.  I 
hope that there is no dark side to this technology waiting to be revealed at 
just the wrong time.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: fznidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Partial list of coal fire power plants being shut down in the 
NE


I don't know if all of the natural gas will really be.  Problems are coming up 
with Benzine injections and other fracking 
injections.  Drilling has slowed here in Western PA, it has not worked out as 
well as planned.


I like Obama the way he talks, acts, and his ideals on woman's rights, however, 
shutting down the trans-america pipe line and a lot of the coal fired power 
plants cannot be in the national interest.   


Here is what BP says about the future of gasoline power.  Its not good.  We are 
going to need cheep electrical power or
become a 3d world nation.


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/28/bp-predicts-the-future-of-cars-hint-yours-probably-isnt-part/
 






Don't count on cold fusion, there still are not independent tests of a robust 
system.  It will be to late under any condition. 
Coal needs to run and small portion of the revenue needs to be vectored off to 
fundamental research, preferably in cold fusion and not squandered on hot 
fusion.


Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:To Radiate or Not to Radiate

[Joseph Hao]

Hey Vortex Gang, 

My primary question motivating this post/query is to get a consensus on whether 
the presence of radiation is a necessary prerequisite for LENR/Cold Fusion 
Effects.  IOW, is radiation ALWAYS present when an LENR/Cold Fusion effect 
occurs.

On one hand, there appears to be copious evidence that radiation of some form 
or another is present during an LENR process.  On the other hand, many people, 
including many here in Vortex appears to brush aside the evidence of radiation 
as circumstantial and unverified.  What is the consensus?  Is Radiation always 
present?  Is Radiation a foolproof indication of an LENR process?

This question is prompted after mulling over what Axil suggested to me a few 
post back.  In his suggestion to my experimental protocols, he suggested I 
consider integrating a Cloud Chamber into my experiments.   Well, after 
thinking about it for a while and trying to come up with a suitable way of 
integrating a "HOT" reactor inside a "COLD" cloud chamber; I have come to the 
conclusion that it might be beyond my technical and financial ability to do so. 
 So, instead, I have come up with the second best thing.   I have been thinking 
of integrating my reactor, not into a Cloud Chamber, but rather into an Ion 
Chamber design.  Integrating a hot reactor into an Ion chamber appears to be 
straightforward and simple.  

So, instead of using flow calorimetry to detect excess heat in an LENR process, 
I will be using the Ion chamber to detect radiation.  As far as I know, there 
is no known chemical process that releases radiation, if the reactants start 
from non-radioactive elements.  So, if I detect radiation, high enough to be 
detectable in a DIY Ion chamber, then that excess radiation must be way above 
ambient, which means that there is only one possible conclusion - that my 
reactor inside the Ion chamber is releasing radiation.  And since  the reactor 
walls would be thick(er), most of the detected radiation would not be Alphas 
and Betas, but rather higher energy gammas.  And if I am detecting copious 
gammas, then an LENR reaction must be the source.  I'm thinking this might be a 
more straightforward way of detecting LENR reactions, rather than Heat 
calorimetry.

What do you guys?  Is this a good way to hunt for the LENR/Rossi process and 
catalysts?

Re: [Vo]:The power generator that runs by water

[zer tte]

http://www.sggp.org.vn/khoahoc_congnghe/2012/1/277882/

Funny google translation :

Dr. Nguyen Chanh Khe (right) and colleagues are drunk with power generators to 
run their water 
According to Dr. Nguyen Chanh Khe, turbines use water more economically as a 
catalyst in the machine can be recycled and long life, up to 5 or 6 
years; cheaper than solar and had a positive impact on the environment. 
This generator uses water and fuel additives is less than 2% or indirect 
hydrogen fuel therefore safe transportation. 
Operation mechanism of the generator is run by water splitting using 
nanotechnology additives in water into electrons and protons H + to 
generate electricity. Dr. Khe, a kwh of electricity produced by this technology 
are cheaper than the national electricity network. 
Water turbines generate electricity without the release of environmental 
contaminants such as Cabonic gases (CO2, CO) by the explosive reaction 
from the gas engine oil generated, which emit only water or steam water 
should be considered a clean energy source. 
In addition, generator operation does not cause noise as combustion engines 
burning gasoline. The turbines in the water waiting for investors to be able to 
mass produce sold. 

Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates

[David Roberson]

I imagine that Newton's laws would be difficult to understand in certain 
coordinate systems but that does not suggest that they fail to function.   Are 
you implying that the laws of physics work or not depending upon the view 
point?  I contend that the real world does not care what coordinate system we 
select to observe it as our choice is merely for our convenience.  Maybe we are 
not discussing the same issue.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 3:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates


Newton's laws in spherical coordinates

Sure... why not?

Give it a try and report back.


On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the physics of any 
experiment.  I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to locate the 
position and other position derivatives of a body.
 
Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world effects?
 
Dave




-Original Message-
From: David Jonsson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates


Hi 


The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system can not 
be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It becomes 
divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic coordinate. 
Covariance can thus be forgotten.


Check 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant


Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate system 
gives different values?


David



David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370

Re: [Vo]:The power generator that runs by water

[zer tte]

Some infos about dr KHE :

"The nanotechnology lab at SHTP Labs had been officially founded in 2004 
leaded by Dr. Nguyen Chanh Khe (a PhD in information physics from Tokyo 
Institute of Technology in 1982, who owns 37 US patents and 30 Japanese  
patents) as Lab Director until now. The 
nanotechnology lab was temporarily located at 35 Nguyen Thong, District 3"
http://shtplabs.org/en/activities/research/nano-technology-laboratory.html


http://shtplabs.org/en/research-reports-and-projects/inventions.html


SHTP:

http://shtp.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/Sites/web/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Saigon-Hi-Tech-Park-Board-of-Management/181122728615644

Re: [Vo]:Partial list of coal fire power plants being shut down in the NE

[fznidarsic]

I don't know if all of the natural gas will really be.  Problems are coming up 
with Benzine injections and other fracking
injections.  Drilling has slowed here in Western PA, it has not worked out as 
well as planned.


I like Obama the way he talks, acts, and his ideals on woman's rights, however, 
shutting down the trans-america pipe line and a lot of the coal fired power 
plants cannot be in the national interest.   


Here is what BP says about the future of gasoline power.  Its not good.  We are 
going to need cheep electrical power or
become a 3d world nation.


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/28/bp-predicts-the-future-of-cars-hint-yours-probably-isnt-part/
 






Don't count on cold fusion, there still are not independent tests of a robust 
system.  It will be to late under any condition. 
Coal needs to run and small portion of the revenue needs to be vectored off to 
fundamental research, preferably in cold fusion and not squandered on hot 
fusion.


Frank Znidarsic



 

[Vo]:The power generator that runs by water

[zer tte]

Just noticed a Vietnamese scientist recently announced an other device :

"The additive that makes the water boiled, according to Dr Khe, is a kind of
chemical using nano technology. The chemical substance can liberates hydrogen,
and then joins the catalytic process to separate electron and proton H+ in
hydrogen.."

Hmm does it sounds a lot like LENR ?:!


"No sound was heard at the lab of the center"

Argh.


http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/science-technology/17840/the-power-generator-that-runs-by-water.html

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed

[zer tte]

While i agree on the fact that Defkalion somehow did what what they said they 
would do (allowing independent testing), meanwhile where are the tests 
protocols (maybe i missed something) ? 

I believe they're sending mixed signals by closing the forum. I can totally 
understand the fact they want to work in peace, but public relations is an 
important part of any business these days (i know they want to license the 
technology, so maybe they think they don't need it anymore).
Shutting down the line won't make the message go away, it will reroute. More 
moderation would probably do the job while keeping the line open.

Now, I am waiting as everyone else to see some testing data released, of course 
Defkalion can't publish them because everyone would claim they are forged, and 
the tester has no obligation to do so, so this can take a while.

Looking at the dark side (what i'm going to write is pure speculation on my 
part and should be seen as science-fiction ) :
Since Siros and falkonide broke up, falkonide always seemed to try to keep the 
line open with Siros , while Siros clearly stated he was over with it. Anyway 
since the testing phase started, i noticed more messages popping around 
suggesting that falkonide stole from Siros , whether this is true or not is 
irrelevant. What is important is that on the internet, stories spreads at the 
speed of light. Maybe someone has an insight on what is going on at falkonide , 
i don't, but if i was them, i would know that these rumors are bad for business 
and even worst if you're are trying to attract potential licensees and 
investors (Who wants to be sued ?). The best way to avoid discussing those 
subjects was to close the forum. This question would have popped up like a 
grasshopper without bringing more information. Not much of a choice or a 
distraction, just business as usual.


I should ask seti if they have some infos, they say they've got plenty of data 
to analyse at http://www.setilive.org/ ;)





>
> From: Jouni Valkonen <...>
>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
>Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 9:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed
> 
>
>I think that Defkalion has now reached the point where chattering in Internet 
>chat room is no longer relevant, because they can let the raw data to speak 
>for them. Data is what we want and words are irrelevant.
>

Re: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates

[James Bowery]

Newton's laws in spherical coordinates

Sure... why not?

Give it a try and report back.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I do not agree that the choice of coordinate systems changes the physics
> of any experiment.  I only see the coordinate system chosen as a way to
> locate the position and other position derivatives of a body.
>
> Could you explain how the Madelung constant would relate to real world
> effects?
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: David Jonsson 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 6:42 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:Physice depends on choice of coordinates
>
> Hi
>
>  The wish and desire of having physics independent of coordinate system
> can not be met nor fulfilled. The Madelung constant is proof of this. It
> becomes divergent in spherical coordinates and convergent in cubic
> coordinate. Covariance can thus be forgotten.
>
>  Check
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelung_constant
>
> Are there any other examples of this effect where choice of coordinate
> system gives different values?
>
>  David
>
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: $35 computer sells out on first day of launch

[Bastiaan Bergman]

Jones,

I respect you too, but also disagree, :-)

> Real fusion cannot occur without
> substantial gamma radiation

What a nonsense is that? If you mean with real, "established", then
ok. I think there is no principal reason for gamma and neutron
radiation in all fusion reactions (there is in plasma D-D fusion).
There are reactions thinkable that do comply with conservation laws
for energy/mass/momentum yet emit their energy in the form of phonons
(lattice vibrations) and have no neutrons left over.

I do agree with you that completely other things are thinkable
(zero-point, hydrino's,.. etc. the sky is the limit if you allow
yourself to break the laws.). I still don't get why Widom-Larsen claim
their theory is not fusion, they have more details about the reaction
mechanism, right or wrong, the energy still comes from the lower
binding energy that lesser&bigger nuclei have, aka fusion. Yes, "Cold
Fusion" stinks but I have no problem getting over it, if it actually
works. (if!)

Cheers.








On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Andre Blum  wrote:
> reply to list my earlier message as I sent this to Guenter only due to his
> reply-to address
>
>
> On 02/29/2012 09:04 PM, Andre Blum wrote:
>
>
> Jones, I respect You, but here You are on the wrong track.
>
> This device is not intended to have any real-world-interfacing.
> It is located in a virtual world with only indirect interfacing to the r-w
> via USB.
>
> Look at olimexino and its relatives, how this is done. This is just 80MHz
> compared to the fancy 800MHz, but the difference is, that You talk to the
> 'world' (TM) with 80MHz, compared to 'Yourself ' (no TM) with 800MHz.
>
> So what is the difference, exactly?
>
>
> The device *does* have real world interfacing. In fact it has plenty. It has
> 2 i2c ports, SPI, UART, (not sure, but I believe also analog in), many
> GPIO's. It does however only have "only" 26 pins that you have to find a
> right muxing for to map them to your function. An arduino duemilanove has
> about the same # pins. A beaglebone has more like 80 of them.
>
> Arduino-like devices are very nice, too, and cheap. And you are right that
> you could use it just as well for controlling this kind of setups. Then, to
> control the arduino, you would need a computer for the necessary 'human
> interfacing'.
>
> With the idea in mind that people might actually want to have more than one
> peerpressure setup (for example for Defkalion-like inert/loaded
> comparisons), it is wise to have stand-alone controllers that can be managed
> over a web interface and also optionally can contact the internet database
> servers with their results on their own. Also, it is a matter of taste, but
> in my eyes a big pro that you can program these ARM devices like you can
> program your PC: use python, java, proper operating system calls,
> multitasking, memory allocation, nice storage support, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed

[Alain Sepeda]

*Ithink that it is a problem of image in front of very conservative
officials...

anyway "la nature a horreur du vide"

http://www.defkalion.se/

don't know if it is a good forum...
*
2012/3/2 Jarold McWilliams 

> I don't think the skepticism was bad at all on their forums.  I also don't
> think it is the reason they shut down the forum.  Why wouldn't they just
> ban them?  The only thing anyone should care about at this point is
> independent verification.  I don't know what they were expecting from a
> forum.  How did they not know that a lot of people only care about
> independent verification, and if Defkalion is not willing to provide that,
> why set up a forum?  The criticism was their own fault when they failed to
> follow their own protocols.  I'm not going to accept this secret test BS
> much longer, either.  They said they'd provide independent verification the
> first months of this year.  I assume that means non secret independent
> verification by the end of this month, and I expect them to do this.  If
> they don't, I'll become the next MaryYugo and really harp on Defkalion and
> Rossi.  Actually, I probably won't because I'll just stop wasting my time
> on this pointless drama.
>
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Craig Brown wrote:
>
> This is all because of the MaryYugo's of the world.  Irrational fear of
> the unknown coupled with a twisted desire to preserve scientific dogma.
> They would not have closed the forum had it not been for these clowns who
> think a scam lurks around every corner in their sad lives.
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed
> From: Terry Blanton 
> Date: Fri, March 02, 2012 1:40 pm
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> I have been there almost as long as the moderators. Now I get this
> message when I try to post:
>
>
> You cannot post new topics in this forum
> You cannot reply to topics in this forum
> You cannot edit your posts in this forum
> You cannot delete your posts in this forum
> You cannot post attachments in this forum
>
> 
>
> I hope they have something. If not, we are all fools. I am not amused.
>
> T
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed

[Jouni Valkonen]

Jarold, 

I do not understand from where this myth is spreading. Defkalion has not 
violated anything they have said. 

There has already been made two out of seven independent validation tests 
following precisely the test protocol. And they were successful as far as we 
know. Too bad that Dick Smith did not want to do the eighth test that was 
offered to him.

It is certainly not Defkalion's duty to publish the results of third party 
independent validation tests!

I think that Defkalion has now reached the point where chattering in Internet 
chat room is no longer relevant, because they can let the raw data to speak for 
them. Data is what we want and words are irrelevant.

―Jouni


On 2 Mar 2012, at 08:13, Jarold McWilliams  wrote:

> I don't think the skepticism was bad at all on their forums.  I also don't 
> think it is the reason they shut down the forum.  Why wouldn't they just ban 
> them?  The only thing anyone should care about at this point is independent 
> verification.  I don't know what they were expecting from a forum.  How did 
> they not know that a lot of people only care about independent verification, 
> and if Defkalion is not willing to provide that, why set up a forum?  The 
> criticism was their own fault when they failed to follow their own protocols. 
>  I'm not going to accept this secret test BS much longer, either.  They said 
> they'd provide independent verification the first months of this year.  I 
> assume that means non secret independent verification by the end of this 
> month, and I expect them to do this.  If they don't, I'll become the next 
> MaryYugo and really harp on Defkalion and Rossi.  Actually, I probably won't 
> because I'll just stop wasting my time on this pointless drama.
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Craig Brown wrote:
> 
>> This is all because of the MaryYugo's of the world.  Irrational fear of the 
>> unknown coupled with a twisted desire to preserve scientific dogma. They 
>> would not have closed the forum had it not been for these clowns who think a 
>> scam lurks around every corner in their sad lives.
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion Forum Closed
>> From: Terry Blanton 
>> Date: Fri, March 02, 2012 1:40 pm
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> 
>> I have been there almost as long as the moderators. Now I get this
>> message when I try to post:
>> 
>> 
>> You cannot post new topics in this forum
>> You cannot reply to topics in this forum
>> You cannot edit your posts in this forum
>> You cannot delete your posts in this forum
>> You cannot post attachments in this forum
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I hope they have something. If not, we are all fools. I am not amused.
>> 
>> T
>> 
>