Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
personally i don't believe nature (or god) balances the books for every process. we only need CoE to hold for our measuring instruments. harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to overcome! Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
[Vo]:Scientific American Blog essay contest
Scientific American Blog http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/ Which of the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong? Announcing the fourth Foundational Questions Institute essay contest Harry
Re: [Vo]:Scientific American Blog essay contest
One of the entries is about anomalous effects ;) 2012/5/25 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Scientific American Blog http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/ Which of the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong? Announcing the fourth Foundational Questions Institute essay contest Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Scientific American Blog essay contest
I mean, entries according to the contest rules. 2012/5/25 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com One of the entries is about anomalous effects ;) 2012/5/25 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Scientific American Blog http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/ Which of the basic assumptions of modern physics are wrong? Announcing the fourth Foundational Questions Institute essay contest Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
On the nasa page http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html Bushnell said However, several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are right prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released. I can only find http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=187#PhotosAccidents links to http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPunexplaine.pdf The light expanded to the solution and at the same instant the cell was shattered by the sharp increase of inner pressure. The explosion blew off the Plexiglas safety door and spread shards of Pyrex glass and electrolyte up to 5 ~ 6 m into the surrounding area. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf On several occasions, experimentalists have endured explosions. Pons and Fleischmann [5] have told that in one case, the palladium melted and fell down, producing damage on the concrete floor of their garage, Zhang et al. [6] using a hollow tube palladium cathode observed three explosions in an open cell. On January 2, 1992, an unfortunate explosion also occurred at SRI in a closed cell [7,8] that killed a scientist. The explosion was attributed to an oxygen deuterium violent recombination. More recently, 13 years later on the same day on January 2, 2005, Mizuno [9] experienced an explosion in an open cell that wounded him and deafened him and co-workers for several days. Any other links to labs blowing up and window melting ?
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
I hope that CoE holds in the universe. That is one guideline that is available for us that I have always relied upon. Does anyone know of any reliable experiments that have indicated that this conservation law is invalid? Of course the energy equivalent of mass is an important component of the law. I have long wondered about the tunneling phenomenon and how it fits in with the CoE. My best understanding is that tunneling is more about particles occupying the upper edge of the bell curve having enough energy to overcome a barrier than an isolated particle that is measured below the required energy level which succeeds in the breach. It is written in stellar fusion lure that the very tiny upper end of the energy range hydrogen nuclei are the ones that undergo conversion. Is it possible to isolate an individual particle in an experiment where its state can be well defined and then determine that it has indeed demonstrated a tunneling that should not be possible? I suspect that the uncertainty principle would preclude such an experiment. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 2:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? personally i don't believe nature (or god) balances the books for every process. e only need CoE to hold for our measuring instruments. arry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to overcome! Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
Lowering of the coulomb barrier is far from an all or nothing situation. There is a fine grained gradation of the reaction that is reflected in increasing probability of tunneling as the coulomb barrier is progressively reduced. As more screening charge is gradually increased and packed around the immediate neighborhood of a nucleus, the coulomb barrier that protects that nucleus is gradually reduced. And competing theories of cold fusion causation must explain how the reaction is gradual and controllable. Charge concentration provides a monotonically increasing counter screening charge reaction that opposes the positive charge of the coulomb barrier. The reports from successful cold fusion reactor builders who post here at vortex which tell us that they can control the power output of their reactors by simply adjusting the input power feed to the spark plug is understandable. That interesting factoid tells me that the cold fusion reaction is a result of (gradual, controllable, adjustable) screening charge accumulation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope that CoE holds in the universe. That is one guideline that is available for us that I have always relied upon. Does anyone know of any reliable experiments that have indicated that this conservation law is invalid? Of course the energy equivalent of mass is an important component of the law. I have long wondered about the tunneling phenomenon and how it fits in with the CoE. My best understanding is that tunneling is more about particles occupying the upper edge of the bell curve having enough energy to overcome a barrier than an isolated particle that is measured below the required energy level which succeeds in the breach. It is written in stellar fusion lure that the very tiny upper end of the energy range hydrogen nuclei are the ones that undergo conversion. Is it possible to isolate an individual particle in an experiment where its state can be well defined and then determine that it has indeed demonstrated a tunneling that should not be possible? I suspect that the uncertainty principle would preclude such an experiment. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 2:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? personally i don't believe nature (or god) balances the books for every process. we only need CoE to hold for our measuring instruments. harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to overcome! Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Any other links to labs blowing up and window melting ? I don't know about windows melting. I listed 5 incidents in chapter 12 of my book. I have heard there have been other explosions but I have no specific information on them. I have heard that cold fusion experiments in China have often exploded. I think they are doing a lot of glow discharge, similar to the Mizuno's experiment that exploded. That is a very unstable reaction. The university ordered Mizuno to stop doing that experiment after the accident. One of the glass shards went deep into his neck, next to the carotid artery. I probably would have stopped that myself. His phenanthrene hydrogenation experiment seems dangerous to me. Several experts told me that given the temperatures and pressures he uses, his steel cells are on the verge of exploding. He is not doing that experiment either these days. The building he is in is not zoned for it. His old building, which he left upon retirement, was torn down because it was falling to pieces and also because it was nuclear waste hazard site, after years of unregulated academic experiments in nuclear engineering, by Mizuno and many others. There were 10 cm cracks in the walls, and lots of what looked like abandoned radwaste to me. These Japanese professors don't have much regard for safety. After I visited Takahashi, I showed a Japanese physicist friend of mine a video of the visit made by Russ George. A guy who works in industry, mainly microelectronics, where safety standards are better than academia. The video showed all kinds of rubbish lying around the linear accelerator building, including rusting steel motorbike engines and wheels, which you find in every building on a Japanese university campus. He paused, and said thoughtfully well, you have already had children . . . Here are quotes from chapter 12: 1. February 1985, Fleischmann and Pons, University of Utah, United States. One the early cells exploded in the campus laboratory. 2. September 1989, T. P. Radhakrishnan *et al.*, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), India. The electrolyte temperature “shot up” from 71°C to 80°C and the cell exploded. [1]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftn1 3. April 1991, X. Zhang *et al.*, Institute of Southwest Nuclear Physics and Chemistry, China. [2]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftn2Three explosions occurred in cells with palladium tube cathodes. Two of these explosions destroyed the glass cells, blowing the tops 1 to 2 meters away. About a half hour after one event, the temperature of the bath surrounding the cell was found to be elevated 5°C. There was 33 ml of gas in the cell headspace, roughly 40 times less than it would take to cause these events. 4. September 2004, J-P. Biberian, Université d’Aix-Marseille II, France. A cell with a palladium tube cathode exploded. The cell had no more than 120 ml of gas in the headspace, which does not seem like enough to cause a chemical explosion of this magnitude. 5. January 2005. Mizuno *et al.*, Hokkaido University, Japan. In the first phase of a glow discharge experiment, before the plasma normally appears, the cell temperature suddenly rose to 80°C and a bright white flash surrounded the cathode. An instant later the cell was shattered, blowing off the Pyrex safety door of the cell container. Shards of glass were driven up to 6 meters away, and one of them injured Mizuno. The explosion produced roughly 132,000 joules, or 441 times more than the total input energy. [3]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftn3 -- [1]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftnref1Radhakrishnan, T.P., et al., *Tritium Generation during Electrolysis Experiment*, in *BARC Studies in Cold Fusion*, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay. p. A 6. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Radhakrishtritiumgen.pdf [2]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftnref2Zhang, X., et al. *On the Explosion in a Deuterium/Palladium Electrolytic System*. in *Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, Frontiers of Cold Fusion*. 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangXontheexplo.pdf [3]file:///C:/Fusion/Book/Cold%20Fusion%20and%20the%20Future.docx#_ftnref3Mizuno, T. and Y. Toriyabe. *Anomalous energy generation during conventional electrolysis*. in *The 12th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science*. 2005. Yokohama, Japan. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an eminently social endeavor. Its far worse than Kuhn indicates. He misdiagnoses the problem. Its not, primarily, a problem with pathway dependence in neurological development. Its primarily a problem with financial dependence on political institutions. I wrote about this in an essay titled Yeoman As the Foundation of Scientific Revolutionshttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2007/01/yeomen-as-foundation-of-scientific.html . The reason this is far worse than Kuhn indicates is that it is entirely conceivable that such financial dependence could enslave generation after generation of scientists. Moreover, it is an unnecessary indictment of age-related cognitive structure to adopt Kuhn's hypothesis as is evidenced, for example, by E. O. Wilson's late age revolution in his thinking about eusociality in contradiction to his claim to popular fame in sociobiology. Indeed, cold fusion itself indicates that quite a few folks of advanced age -- particularly those who are rendered financially independent by tenure or retirement -- are more capable of objective evaluation of the evidence than are those who are pursuing careers sensitive to political nuance. I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The reason this is far worse than Kuhn indicates is that it is entirely conceivable that such financial dependence could enslave generation after generation of scientists. I don't know about generations. Peter Hagelstein told me the problem has gotten much worse in the last 10 years or so. He says much of the problem is caused by micromanagement from Washington. Much of that problem, in turn, is caused by misplaced fear that scientists are committing fraud. Restrictive laws and excessively tight oversight has been put in place. This is partly caused by conservative opposition to scientific conclusion such as global warming. Since the 1970s, conservatives have become sharply critical of many aspects of science, especially evolution and global warming. Before that they were as supportive as liberals were. It would have been inconceivable for someone like Richard Nixon to oppose the teaching of evolution, whereas every major Republican candidate in the last two elections has paid lip service to creationism. See: Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010 http://asr.sagepub.com/content/77/2/167.full Hagelstein also cited corrupt activities among leading academic decision makers, such as leading scientists who do peer review, recommend against publication, and then steal the ideas they blocked from publication. Tom Passell described leading scientists who publicly lashed out against cold fusion in 1989 and 1990 while secretly applying for research grants from EPRI to study it. I'm sure that sort of thing is a problem but it always has been. Backstabbing, betrayal, plagiarism, stealing credit and so on have been common in academic science since it began in the 17th century. In my opinion, generally speaking, and compared to people in other walks of life with similar jobs such as programmers and engineers, I think academic scientists are bunch of disreputable, unethical scheming lowlifes. I am serious. They have a public reputation for being saintly, other-worldly people with frizzy hair halos like Einstein. They do not deserve it. Inventors such as Edison and Rossi are in it for the money, and they make no bones about it. That is refreshing. You know where you stand with them. If you invest in them keep a tight grip on your shares. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
At 12:41 PM 5/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Any other links to labs blowing up and window melting ? I don't know about windows melting. There's also : Re: [Vo]:the desktop supernova - The Mail Archive http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg64497.html Points to : http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cold-fusion-comedy.html UPDATES: 2/22/12: A new NanoSprire press release http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=44551 states: Nanospire has announced that its investigative study on fusion created by cavitation in water has come to an end. It's good that they have stopped testing for now. During the nuclear fusion reaction that occurred when they did their test, Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. [ All references to that quote come back to this pieeconomics blog ]
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
At 01:49 PM 5/25/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Came from Le Clair himself, in response to Krivit http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/31/new-energy-times-issue-36-letters/ I have just spoken with Steven Krivit and I accept his gracious and sincere apology. He points out that he feels we accomplished LENR, not fusion. Thats fine, it is semantics as far as Im concerned. I do stand by my claim of fusion being triggered by the zero point energy release in the experiment. It was supposed to be a hot water heater powered by cavitation designed to extract zero point energy, the fusion release was an unintended byproduct. I claim fusion because I observed nuclear tracks and mass transmutation of the elements, confirmed by SEM_EDAX. XPS and LA-ICP-MS (mass spec). We saw the presence of nearly every element in the periodic table imbedded into a diamond matrix covering the core of the experiment. The transmuted particles were so radioactive they cooked the clear plastic dishes they were placed in after the experiment. This stopped a week after the experiment, a clear sign of short-lived isotopes, the mass spec anaysis confirmed this. Mass spec is the gold standard and showed the transmuted particles followed supernova isotope ratios (All 80 or so ratios were close to one) and none resembled earthly abundances. All of this is hard to rationally explain as other than being generated by nuclear fusion. There were other many other profound effects we observed that were not subtle as well and equally hard to explain. The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Mark LeClair, Nanospire
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Le Clair is quoted: The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Good heavens. It is amazing they survived. Did they take photographs of these things? Did they preserve some of the hundreds of samples of damaged wood and other materials from the surroundings? If they did not take photos and samples, I doubt this account is accurate. Maybe I should not be so dismissive, since Fleischmann and Pons did not take photos or preserve samples from their explosion. It was very stupid of them not to. Very unprofessional. I said that to Martin, and he ruefully agreed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Krivit elaborates on NASA and Larsen : NASA and Widom-Larsen Theory: Inside Story http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/05/24/nasa-and-widom-larsen-theory-inside-story/#more-2474
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal for bravery. I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the plot to a wild science fiction movie. What a shame that the occurrence was not better documented! Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video Le Clair is quoted: The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Good heavens. It is amazing they survived. Did they take photographs of these things? Did they preserve some of the hundreds of samples of damaged wood and other materials from the surroundings? If they did not take photos and samples, I doubt this account is accurate. Maybe I should not be so dismissive, since Fleischmann and Pons did not take photos or preserve samples from their explosion. It was very stupid of them not to. Very unprofessional. I said that to Martin, and he ruefully agreed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I find your attempt to equate Darwin with Newton rather amusing. If there ever was a field of pseudoscience, that is beholden to and extremely malleable to political pressure; it is the field that Darwin created with his swiss-cheese theory. While Newton created whole fields of legitimate science, Darwin and his science of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution is a quintessential example of how a legiitimate field of study has been turned into a mockery of political conformance. My beef is not with Darwin, but with how people turned the science of Darwin into a religion of humanism. Whenever someone proposes a theory, many times they come up with a proposition on how to falsily their theory. Well, Darwin came up with how to falsify his theory of Darwinian Evolution. Here is what he said about his theory and how to falsify it. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. And that organ you're using to read this post is another. There must be dozens, even hundreds of organs, processes, systems in your body that could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. By this criteria, Darwinian Evolution is FALSIFIED, and yet, anyone who questions Darwinian Evolution is automatically involved with pseudo-science and is labelled a pseudoscientist. Just as Cold Fusion is automatically labeled a pseudoscience. So my point is: If you are wondering why people like Huzienga, Parks, Zimmerman oppose Cold Fusion out of hand, just remember that if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, there is a Huzienga, Parks and Zimmerman in you. (I'll be docking away from your shots now.) Jojo I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/ the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog. Cheers: Axil On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Le Clair is quoted: The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab. Good heavens. It is amazing they survived. Did they take photographs of these things? Did they preserve some of the hundreds of samples of damaged wood and other materials from the surroundings? If they did not take photos and samples, I doubt this account is accurate. Maybe I should not be so dismissive, since Fleischmann and Pons did not take photos or preserve samples from their explosion. It was very stupid of them not to. Very unprofessional. I said that to Martin, and he ruefully agreed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Reads like the catalyst may have been
*Lysergic acid diethylamide*
*
*On Friday, May 25, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
The scenario that they mention is beyond frightening and anyone who
remained in the vicinity of that experiment should be given a metal for
bravery.
I can imagine the description of damage being used as part of the plot to
a wild science fiction movie. What a shame that the occurrence was not
better documented!
Are you sure this was not part of an April fools joke?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Fri, May 25, 2012 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube
video
Le Clair is quoted:
The experiment gave off powerful crested cnoid de Broglie Matter wave
soliton wave packages that were doubly periodic and followed the Jacobi
Elliptic functions exactly, mostly in the form of large doubly-periodic
vortices. Hundreds of wave trains and vortices appeared everywhere and are
permanently burned into walls, objects and trees surrounding the lab.
Good heavens. It is amazing they survived.
Did they take photographs of these things? Did they preserve some of the
hundreds of samples of damaged wood and other materials from the
surroundings? If they did not take photos and samples, I doubt this account
is accurate.
Maybe I should not be so dismissive, since Fleischmann and Pons did not
take photos or preserve samples from their explosion. It was very stupid of
them not to. Very unprofessional. I said that to Martin, and he ruefully
agreed.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/ the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog. Thanks. Not many photos there. Only one, it seems. I do not know what to make of it. Ed Storms is quoted: I examined the material sent by NanoSpire and saw nothing unusual. I have no reason to doubt the experience they claim, but I have no reason to believe it either. As for the theory, it makes no sense based on my understanding of science. That is sensible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
LeClair has observed the generation of *Protonated Water Clusters* in the plasma of the collapsing cavitation bubble. This nanomaterial is a topologic material that concentrates positive charges; most probably superconductive and quantum mechanically coherent at the tip of the cluster. It is this charge concentration that reduces or cancels the coulomb barrier. See *The following doctoral thesis characterizes **Protonated Water Clusters. These clusters are formed around positive ions. * * * *http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/28349/1/gupea_2077_28349_1.pdf*http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/28349/1/gupea_2077_28349_1.pdf ** * * *Thermal properties of clusters and molecules* * * *- Experiments on evaporation, thermionic emission, and radiative cooling* * * *E**RIKA **S**UNDÉN* * * *Department of Physics* *University of Gothenburg* * * With the strength of the coulomb barrier greatly lowered or completely down, the energy of the bow shock wave only needs to be equal to or greater than the endothermic energy levels needed to transmit elements over the atomic number of iron. Storms is correct in his observation that the nuclear fusion process is “novel and unexpected”. The neutron production levels needed to transmute trans-iron elements is not produced since LeClear is still alive after exposure to his reaction. This proton based type of transmutation has been seen in exploding foil experiments and is a LENR reaction. There is a good chance that the LeClair effect has been seen before is these exploding foil experiments conducted in water. The electric spark would have produced a collapsing cavitation bubble identical to that seen in the LeClair experiment. http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-333/aflb333m645.pdf On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/9602083_NanoSpire_Inc_on_Harnessing_Cavitation_Zero_Point_Energy_to_Produce_Fusion_and_Transmutation_in_Water/ the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog. Thanks. Not many photos there. Only one, it seems. I do not know what to make of it. Ed Storms is quoted: I examined the material sent by NanoSpire and saw nothing unusual. I have no reason to doubt the experience they claim, but I have no reason to believe it either. As for the theory, it makes no sense based on my understanding of science. That is sensible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
This link provides a nice concise summary of evolutionary thought from the Greeks to the victorian age. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml Darwin's account of evolution is over emphasized, but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Although the link says Lamarckian evolution has been discredited, there is some truth in Lamarck's account as work on epigenetics is revealing. Anyway, I think evolution is driven by many causes and Darwinian natural selection is just one of the causes. Harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I find your attempt to equate Darwin with Newton rather amusing. If there ever was a field of pseudoscience, that is beholden to and extremely malleable to political pressure; it is the field that Darwin created with his swiss-cheese theory. While Newton created whole fields of legitimate science, Darwin and his science of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Darwinian Evolution is a quintessential example of how a legiitimate field of study has been turned into a mockery of political conformance. My beef is not with Darwin, but with how people turned the science of Darwin into a religion of humanism. Whenever someone proposes a theory, many times they come up with a proposition on how to falsily their theory. Well, Darwin came up with how to falsify his theory of Darwinian Evolution. Here is what he said about his theory and how to falsify it. If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. And that organ you're using to read this post is another. There must be dozens, even hundreds of organs, processes, systems in your body that could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. By this criteria, Darwinian Evolution is FALSIFIED, and yet, anyone who questions Darwinian Evolution is automatically involved with pseudo-science and is labelled a pseudoscientist. Just as Cold Fusion is automatically labeled a pseudoscience. So my point is: If you are wondering why people like Huzienga, Parks, Zimmerman oppose Cold Fusion out of hand, just remember that if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, there is a Huzienga, Parks and Zimmerman in you. (I'll be docking away from your shots now.) Jojo I hate to think what would have become of Newton or Darwin had they not been among the relatively independent British middle (yeoman) class.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
[Vo]:Can HAARP Alter Spacetime?
Inquiring minds want to know: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2167/703/Physicist:_HAARP_Manipulates_Time.html T
[Vo]:Rossi tubules
Rossi tubules The tubules that Rossi fabricates on the surface of his nickel micro-powder could be a way to concentrate electric charge in a very small area. Assuming a large electrostatic charge is concentrated on the surface of each nanowire, when that nanowire finds its way to the surface of the micro-powder and lies horizontally, the tubule surface of the micro-powder particles will act just like a surface of all-encompassing and countless sharp protuberances upon which the nanowire cannot fail to lie horizontally just like a fakir lies on a bed of nails. The charge on the nanowire will induce a counter charge of opposite polarity at the very top of each nickel tubule tip. Concentrated charge screening of the coulomb barrier will then act to induce cold fusion at the tip of each of these nickel tubes. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think fallicies render a theory fatally flawed. A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150 years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement. Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math replaces intuition in the art of theory making. harry On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing wrt to Hot fusion. If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this forum. This will be my last reponse also. I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. So, if your think that I am Completely wrong; if you think I know nothing about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the movement against Darwinian Evolution? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The organ composing every other organ you have - the cell is another. You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw that recently!) I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does not apply to cold fusion. If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will let the matter drop. - Jed
[Vo]:Bizarre -- torsional physics
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Hyperdimensional-Eclipse.htm
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: the pictures from LeClair are in the comments section of this blog. I know very little about Mark LeClair or NanoSpire. The main thing I conclude from the photographs in the comments is that the lab is not clean and that contamination of any experiments seems likely. Eric
