[Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion

[Axil Axil]

FYI

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-nanoweld-aligned-nanorods-solid-materials.html

*"Gold nanorods absorb light at different wavelengths, depending upon the
size and orientation of the nanorod, and then they convert that absorbed
light directly into heat*."
This example is presented to you to support the point that nanowires can
concert gamma-rays directly into heat is properly configured.


Cheers:   Axil

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Axil Axil]

 **
**
*Ed Storms said: I do not now believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.*





I agree with this. But the conditions that produce LENR make the formation
of BEC probable.



This BEC formation is not a necessary and sufficient condition to the
development of LENR, be if a BEC does form, it may enhance the reaction.





I also now question what professor George H. Miley saw in those cracks. He
says that the cavities held a deuteron BEC.



I don’t think he has done a definitive test to make a determination as
follows:



*The experiment would determine whether or not a BEC can indeed form inside
a metal at room-temperature. If a BEC forms, you can then measure the
velocity distribution of the deuterons with low-energy neutron scattering
or high-energy x-ray scattering off the deuterium in the metal, as was done
in the atomic case.
*

I am doing my annual LENR theory reformulation; ,,,throw out the old, ring
in the new…





My newly developing theory points to the possible but not necessary
development of a plexciton BEC.





Addressed to all and sundry, I have all the time in the world to explain my
theory so please ask me and leave Ed alone.


 Cheers:Axil

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how I
> would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my theory
>
> Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you
> replied with demanding arrogance.  In a discussion group, interaction with
> other people is voluntary and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction.
>
> Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate
> this belief into English you can accept. I have seen no evidence to support
> the claim. I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on
> hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. I have seen no evidence or
> explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with
> observations attributed to LENR. Are these statements clear?  These
> statements are based on my study and reading of all the evidence I can
> find.  I'm not interest in debating this information. I suggest you do this
> with people who care about a possible role for BEC.
>
> Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid
> material conflicts with what I have observed and shows a confidence on your
> part that has no justification. If you want an example of why I want no
> further discussion with you, simply look at the way you insist that only
> you understand this interaction.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>  OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
>> ***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every day
>>  next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.
>>
>> You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully
>> answer.
>> ***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm asking at
>> the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.
>>
>> If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
>> ***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your
>> theory, then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?
>>
>> I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
>> ***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the
>> time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It aint very
>> scientific, but I get it.
>>
>> Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the
>> past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
>> ***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest
>> to you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a
>> viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we have neither of these, we
>> rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want
>> to pursue inductive reasoning.   You seem to prefer to engage in
>> opinionation.   Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due
>> to your 23 years of effort in this area.  But it just so happens that in
>> the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in
>> creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's
>> in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of
>> inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.
>>
>> I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
>> ***Science aint about belief.
>>
>>>Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either
>>> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.
>>>
>>
>> ***It would appear to be the case.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Clearly the "generator" at the back end is meant to carry clubs.
http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Harry Veeder]

Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
>

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[George Holz]

 

Dennis Cravens wrote:
I would say that one “wind tunnel” type series experiments I did was nothing
more 
than 2 dozen small co-deposited wires with various additives.  
Their test tubes were all placed in the same water bath (in series for 
the same current, and zeners across the electrodes in glass tubes for
 the same net voltage across each so the power inside each were roughly  the
same).  
I then just compared them.  I did not start with absolute measures,
just rough relative 
measures from the mean.  It allowed for rapid screening of various
additives.  
You don’t have to have a micrometer to see which piece of spaghetti is the
longest – just line them up. 

Hi Dennis,
I would be interested in the results of this experiment. Was it reported
anywhere?
What was the electrolyte and what materials did you test. Perhaps a gas
phase version
of this idea could be used to evaluate Ni-H materials applied to wires at
constant power.
This is probably not better than Brian Ahern's experiments. It would be
interesting to provide
atomic H rather than H2 to separate the splitting of the H2 from the heat
generating
possibly OU effects. There are obviously many problems in applying this to
gas phase.
It is however quite a neat trick for electrolytic experiments.

George Holz 
Varitronics Systems
geh...@optonline.net

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

You've been trolling vortex-l with our dark matter rhetoric, shoehorning
just about anything of mild interest without so much as a single
calculation that could be peer reviewed that even in a post-hoc analysis
could be seen as validating your rhetoric.

While its true I don't speak for everyone, I'm certain that among the many
who have fallen silent in response to your constant trolls there are a few
who actually are open minded enough to look at something resembling real
work from you.  I'm among them actually, which is why I'm not simply silent.

As far as my theory goes, I've already stated but to elaborate:

The sources for asteroid mining are numerous, well established AIAA
publications spanning decades and including current business plans by a
company backed by major silicon valley venture financiers:  Planetary
Resources.  The sensor technologies are likewise very old and mature
although the specific technologies cited by Planetary Resources have been
under deep black cover for decades with occasional glimpses leaked.  The
least plausible aspect of my theory is that anyone could actually keep
secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars
-- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the
capability of the military.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:32 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today.  Stalemate is OK with
> me.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U
>> professor requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy
>> theories.
>>
>> Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95%
>> of the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
>> think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
>> atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
>> particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
>> explain quantum gravity.
>>
>> I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty
>> of ripples right here on Earth.
>>
>> What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you
>> have secret government documents?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> We await with bated breath your homework.
>>
>> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
>> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
>> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>>
>> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory
>> is this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
>> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
>> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
>> meteor.
>>
>> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
>> trolls.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>
>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>
>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>
>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>
>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> Your answer:
>>
>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government consp

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today.  Stalemate is OK with
me.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote:

> Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor
> requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories.
>
> Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of
> the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
> think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
> atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
> particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
> explain quantum gravity.
>
> I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty
> of ripples right here on Earth.
>
> What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you have
> secret government documents?
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> We await with bated breath your homework.
>
> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>
> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
> this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
> meteor.
>
> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
> trolls.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>
> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>
> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor
requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories.

Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of
the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is.  Where do you
think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our
atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy
particles all of the time.  These high energy quantum particles also help
explain quantum gravity.

I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty of
ripples right here on Earth.

What is the evidence for your theory?  I am open to evidence.  Do you have
secret government documents?




On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> We await with bated breath your homework.
>
> I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
> various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
> typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.
>
> The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
> this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
> evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
> is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
> meteor.
>
> Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
> trolls.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>>
>> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
>> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>>
>>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>>
>>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>>
>>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>>
>>> Your answer:
>>>
>>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the
>>> URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>>
>>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>>
>>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>>
>>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>>
>>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application
>>> of these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>>
>>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Darkmattersalot.com
>>> on the menu
>>>
>>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show
>>> multi-body problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I
>>> have also been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure
>>> systems.  I am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and
>>> fitting it to two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional
>>> patent filed.
>>>
>>> All you have is an

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

We await with bated breath your homework.

I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to
various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be
typical of your reponses to pointed questions:  Evasive.

The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is
this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was
evidence of a new weapon."  and the only possible backup for this sentence
is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a
meteor.

Keep it up, ChemE.  Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your
trolls.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.
>
> Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
> with the Mayans based on its merits.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>>
>> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
>> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
>> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
>> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
>> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>>
>> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
>> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
>> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
>> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>>
>> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k
>> tons.   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>>
>> Your answer:
>>
>> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Darkmattersalot.com
>> on the menu
>>
>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[Terry Blanton]

Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone.

Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped
with the Mayans based on its merits.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.
>
> A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
> prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
> (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
> theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
> classified work as "conspiratorial".
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge.

A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan
prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a"
(singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my
theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government
classified work as "conspiratorial".

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Ok,
>
> The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site
>
> The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
> nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
> Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
> it, although they found fragments around the hole.
>
> The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
>   Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.
>
> Your answer:
>
> http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
>> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>>
>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>>
>> But you must then search for the subheading:
>>
>> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>>
>> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
>> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>>
>> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
>> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
>> remains unanswered even in part.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Darkmattersalot.com
>> on the menu
>>
>> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
>> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation p

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how  
I would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my  
theory


Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you  
replied with demanding arrogance.  In a discussion group, interaction  
with other people is voluntary and based on a pleasant and fruitful  
interaction.


Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE BEC has a role, perhaps I can  
translate this belief into English you can accept. I have seen no  
evidence to support the claim. I have seen no plausible justification  
that a BEC based on hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. I  
have seen no evidence or explanation of how a BEC can produce results  
that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR. Are these  
statements clear?  These statements are based on my study and reading  
of all the evidence I can find.  I'm not interest in debating this  
information. I suggest you do this with people who care about a  
possible role for BEC.


Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a  
solid material conflicts with what I have observed and shows a  
confidence on your part that has no justification. If you want an  
example of why I want no further discussion with you, simply look at  
the way you insist that only you understand this interaction.





On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:


OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every  
day  next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple  
question.


You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to  
fully answer.
***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm  
asking at the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.


If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your  
theory, then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?


I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't  
take the time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It  
aint very scientific, but I get it.


Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in  
the past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of  
interest to you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that  
destroys BECs as a viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we  
have neither of these, we rely on inductive reasoning to move us  
forward and now you don't even want to pursue inductive reasoning.
You seem to prefer to engage in opinionation.   Now, admittedly,  
your opinion is worth more than mine due to your 23 years of effort  
in this area.  But it just so happens that in the case of laser  
cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in creating BECs),  
you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's in the  
best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of  
inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.


I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
***Science aint about belief.
   Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism,  
either implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.


***It would appear to be the case.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Ok,

The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site

The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a
nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read
Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain
it, although they found fragments around the hole.

The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons.
  Without  knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell.

Your answer:
http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories



On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
> to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):
>
> http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/
>
> But you must then search for the subheading:
>
> Typical Particle Orbit Calculations
>
> The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
> these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.
>
> My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
> "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
> remains unanswered even in part.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- b

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL
to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably):

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/

But you must then search for the subheading:

Typical Particle Orbit Calculations

The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of
these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013.

My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an
"internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine
remains unanswered even in part.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Darkmattersalot.com
> on the menu
>
> My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
> through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
>> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
>> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
>> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
>> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>>
>> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
>> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
>> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
>> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
>> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
>> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
>> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
>> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>>
>> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
>> all over the Internet.
>>
>> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
>> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
>> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
>> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
>> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
>> artificially controlled meteor:
>>
>> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
>> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
>> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
>> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
>> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
>> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
>> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>>
>> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
>> placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
>> chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
>> provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
>> earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby gu

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Kevin O'Malley]

OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
***I don't care about hurt feelings.  You can hurt my feelings every day
next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.

You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully
> answer.
>
***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered.  That's why I'm asking at
the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor.

If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow.
***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your theory,
then what are you doing?  Trolling for groupies?

I simply do not have the time to answer all questions.
***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the
time to answer the questions you don't like.  I get it.  It aint very
scientific, but I get it.

Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the
past, so this idea is not of interest to me.
***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest to
you.  And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a
viable theory, you'd be interested.Since we have neither of these, we
rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want
to pursue inductive reasoning.   You seem to prefer to engage in
opinionation.   Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due
to your 23 years of effort in this area.  But it just so happens that in
the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in
creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR.  So it's
in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of
inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level.

I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
***Science aint about belief.

>Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either
> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly.
>
> ***It would appear to be the case.

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Darkmattersalot.com
on the menu

My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting
through a wormhole, they are just playing with us.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
> technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
> science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
> widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
> I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.
>
> On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
> arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
> referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
> explanation of the observe phenomena.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>
> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
> on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
> rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
> sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
> atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
> serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
> approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>
> Now for the motive:
>
> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer
technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane
science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being
widely acknowledged as being legitimate.  I've made no such assumptions and
I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is more plausible.

On the other hand if you, at long last, have actually come up with
arithmetic, you might try not only providing a URL instead of merely
referring to some menu on some website, but applying that arithmetic in an
explanation of the observe phenomena.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
> problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
> been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
> am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
> two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.
>
> All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
> all over the Internet.
>
> I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark
> band are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
>> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
>> refuse to be forthcoming.
>>
>> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
>> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
>> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
>> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
>> governments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
>> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
>> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
>> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
>> artificially controlled meteor:
>>
>> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
>> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
>> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
>> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
>> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
>> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
>> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>>
>> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
>> placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
>> chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
>> provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
>> earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no
>> substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry
>> would approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>>
>> Now for the motive:
>>
>> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
>> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
>> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
>> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
>> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
>> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
>> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
>> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
>> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
>> control of the asteroid.
>>
>> Re

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Actually I have calcs now on the menu on my site.  I also show multi-body
problem formulas and calculations for the core of the Earth.  I have also
been tracking orbits for 2 months and predicting low pressure systems.  I
am building an orbital model through the Google Earth API and fitting it to
two Hurricane tracks from 2012.  Also have a provisional patent filed.

All you have is another government conspiracy theory I can find plastered
all over the Internet.

I have falsifiable claims, one being that double rainbows with a dark band
are thermodynamic and pull a vacuum and cool and condense water vapor.

On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at
> a blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
> refuse to be forthcoming.
>
> Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>
> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
> on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
> rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
> sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
> atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
> serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
> approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>
> Now for the motive:
>
> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
> control of the asteroid.
>
> Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
> opportunity) are:
>
> Why Russia?
>
> Why now?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
> random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
>
> (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
> ToE. Consider an infinite
> sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
> finite pattern, i.e., any finite
> binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
> consider our observable universe
> quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
> into a huge bit string. If the
> universe ends in a big crunc

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Paul Breed  wrote:


> sustained in continuous, stable reactions lasting
> up to 3 months at Toyota, so there is no question that if the reaction can
> be controlled, it can be made into a useful source of energy.
>
>
> Is there a paper or other reference on this experiment?
>
>
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

See the table at the end.

I should have said 5 months. 158 days.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Paul Breed]

Jed Said:

6. Power density and temperatures roughly equivalent to the core of a
fission reactor have been sustained in continuous, stable reactions lasting
up to 3 months at Toyota, so there is no question that if the reaction can
be controlled, it can be made into a useful source of energy.


Is there a paper or other reference on this experiment?

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

Your don't have a theory, ChemE.  You have a lot of words and pictures at a
blog.  No arithmetic.  I've asked you for arithmetic repeatedly and you
refuse to be forthcoming.

Moreover, you pretend that I said nothing about classified information.



On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
> I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
> celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
> civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
> governments.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
>> for the "coincidence":
>>
>> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
>> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
>> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
>> picture
>>  should
>> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
>> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
>> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
>> decades -- including the military.
>>
>> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
>> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
>> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
>> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
>> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
>> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
>> artificially controlled meteor:
>>
>> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
>> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
>> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
>> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
>> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
>> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
>> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>>
>> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were
>> placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing
>> chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could
>> provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter
>> earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no
>> substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry
>> would approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>>
>> Now for the motive:
>>
>> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
>> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
>> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
>> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
>> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
>> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
>> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
>> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
>> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
>> control of the asteroid.
>>
>> Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
>> opportunity) are:
>>
>> Why Russia?
>>
>> Why now?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering"
>> of random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
>>
>> (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
>> ToE. Consider an infinite
>> sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
>> finite pattern, i.e., any finite
>> binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
>> consider our observable universe
>> quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
>> into a huge bit string. If the
>> universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
>> high resolution 3D movie of the
>> universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also
>> appears somewhere in our random
>> string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
>> the Boltzmann brain idea that
>> in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy regions
>> * that resemble our own universe
>> and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
>> some minds her

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[ChemE Stewart]

Wow, I thought my theory was strange.
I think our space tracking capabilities for high speed
celestial objects are woefully lacking and we are sitting ducks.  We have
civilians with HD video cams that are detecting these objects before the
governments.



On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote:

> OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation
> for the "coincidence":
>
> It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
> material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
> that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
> picture
>  should
> not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
> existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
> by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
> decades -- including the military.
>
> We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
> "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
> a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
> unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
> necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
> artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
> artificially controlled meteor:
>
> If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
> prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
> precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
> is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
> provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
> possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
> GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.
>
> As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
> on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
> rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
> sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
> atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
> serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
> approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.
>
> Now for the motive:
>
> In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
> SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
> 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
> something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
> cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
> opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
> involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
> is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
> brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
> control of the asteroid.
>
> Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
> opportunity) are:
>
> Why Russia?
>
> Why now?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
> random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
>
> (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
> ToE. Consider an infinite
> sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
> finite pattern, i.e., any finite
> binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
> consider our observable universe
> quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
> into a huge bit string. If the
> universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
> high resolution 3D movie of the
> universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also
> appears somewhere in our random
> string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
> the Boltzmann brain idea that
> in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy 
> regions*that resemble our own universe
> and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
> some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
> Subjective)" .
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation for
the "coincidence":

It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential
material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons.  The fact
that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the
picture
should
not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have
existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used
by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for
decades -- including the military.

We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential
"black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed
a decades-long maturation period.  The technologies existed, in
unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program.  This is all that is
necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an
artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an
artificially controlled meteor:

If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid
prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater
precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than
is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources.  This
provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years,
possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within
GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013.

As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed
on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of
rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide
sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's
atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial
serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would
approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid.

Now for the motive:

In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a
SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an
'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is
something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability"
cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the
opposing side's intelligence agencies.  Such a statistical anomaly
involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature".  The message
is simply this:  We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little
brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have
control of the asteroid.

Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and
opportunity) are:

Why Russia?

Why now?



On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
> random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
>
> (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
> ToE. Consider an infinite
> sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
> finite pattern, i.e., any finite
> binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
> consider our observable universe
> quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe
> into a huge bit string. If the
> universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
> high resolution 3D movie of the
> universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also
> appears somewhere in our random
> string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
> the Boltzmann brain idea that
> in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy 
> regions*that resemble our own universe
> and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
>> some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
>> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
>> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
>> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
>> Subjective)" .
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
>>> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
>>>  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
>>> predictions that are utter non sense.
>>>
>>>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
>>> happen because it may take forever to get the informat

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of
random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):

(R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a
ToE. Consider an infinite
sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any
finite pattern, i.e., any finite
binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now
consider our observable universe
quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe into
a huge bit string. If the
universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital
high resolution 3D movie of the
universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also appears
somewhere in our random
string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of
the Boltzmann brain idea that
in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy
regions*that resemble our own universe
and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8].


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
> some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
> for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
> Subjective)" .
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal
>> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.
>>  Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
>> predictions that are utter non sense.
>>
>>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
>> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
>> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
>> as far as I know.
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Harry Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>>
>>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
>> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
>> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
>> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
>> >> making
>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
>> typing
>> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
>> can
>> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
>> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
>> impossibility.
>> >
>> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
>> means.
>> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
>> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
>> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
>> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
>> >
>> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
>> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
>> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
>> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
>> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
>> > of the universe.
>> >
>> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
>> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
>> > up also.
>> >
>> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
>> > will need to go through Pi.
>> >
>> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
>> > it might never occur.
>> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
>> > 100 digits?
>> > For that matter does it show up at all?
>> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
>> >
>> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
>> > further you search.
>> >
>> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
>> >
>> > Ah, didn't take long.
>> >
>> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
>> >
>> > Fun video.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I have not seen the video,
>> > You should.
>> >
>> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
>> > do not reveal the activit

RE: [Vo]:An improved LENR theory.

[DJ Cravens]

FYI -  On the chemical side of things - Pd has 10 ( 1s2 2s2p6 3s2p6d10 4s2p6d10 
and exception to the rule of 8) outer electrons and an electronegativity equal 
to hydrogen.  Its outer shell is bristling with electrons that are equally 
shared with H/D. Dennis
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:13:34 -0500
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:An improved LENR theory.

I have always believed that LENR is caused by an accumulation of electrons that 
are localized in a small space whose collective charge would screen the coulomb 
barrier of nearby atoms.Here is the most promising scheme that I have come 
across so far; it goes as follows:
The empty space BETWEEN the Nano rods projecting out of a micro-particle or the 
crack in a metal lattice becomes the home of electrons that accumulate there 
and are localized within that space. They form an electron droplet where the 
electrons are quantized like the electrons that orbit an artificial atom.
See this YouTube to understand the physic 
involved.http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=1hj7tM2WgCA&feature=endscreen
Except in the empty space there is no nucleus, just electrons that oscillate in 
a predictable way.Electrons are added to the cavity as energy is supplied to 
the system.These electrons come from the atoms that comprise the nanowires as 
they form dipoles where the holes exist that correspond to associated electrons 
or from unbound electrons on the surface of the metal lattice 
The greater number of electrons that can be packed into the cavity, the larger 
the coulomb suppression effect will become.In a Rossi reactor the electrostatic 
energy to charge these cavities come from the “secret sauce” thermoelectric 
additives.
In the DGT system, the energy comes from the thermoelectric additives and a 
plasmoid formed by a spark discharge.The LENR+ system is distinguished from a 
simple LENR system because the LENR+ system provides more electron packing 
energy to localize more electrons into the cavities. 
 The Fano effect provides constructive/destructive interference to the electron 
loading energy to add electrons to the electron droplet. The technology 
described in the video provides experimental analog support for understanding 
the physics of LENR. 
If the suppression of the coulomb barrier on the cavity walls is proportional 
to the electron count localized in the cavity. 
 Cheers:   Axil   

[Vo]:An improved LENR theory.

[Axil Axil]

I have always believed that LENR is caused by an accumulation of electrons
that are localized in a small space whose collective charge would screen
the coulomb barrier of nearby atoms.

Here is the most promising scheme that I have come across so far; it goes
as follows:

The empty space BETWEEN the Nano rods projecting out of a micro-particle or
the crack in a metal lattice becomes the home of electrons that accumulate
there and are localized within that space.

They form an electron droplet where the electrons are quantized like the
electrons that orbit an artificial atom.

See this YouTube to understand the physic involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=1hj7tM2WgCA&feature=endscreen

Except in the empty space there is no nucleus, just electrons that
oscillate in a predictable way.

Electrons are added to the cavity as energy is supplied to the system.

These electrons come from the atoms that comprise the nanowires as they
form dipoles where the holes exist that correspond to associated electrons
or from unbound electrons on the surface of the metal lattice

The greater number of electrons that can be packed into the cavity, the
larger the coulomb suppression effect will become.

In a Rossi reactor the electrostatic energy to charge these cavities come
from the “secret sauce” thermoelectric additives.

In the DGT system, the energy comes from the thermoelectric additives and a
plasmoid formed by a spark discharge.

The LENR+ system is distinguished from a simple LENR system because the
LENR+ system provides more electron packing energy to localize more
electrons into the cavities.

 The Fano effect provides constructive/destructive interference to the
electron loading energy to add electrons to the electron droplet.

The technology described in the video provides experimental analog support
for understanding the physics of LENR.
If the suppression of the coulomb barrier on the cavity walls is
proportional to the electron count localized in the cavity.

Cheers:   Axil

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[DJ Cravens]

 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:41:40 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
From: p...@rasdoc.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


>Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to a 
>place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to clobber the 
>experiment. >Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary calorimetry.



I would say that one “wind tunnel” type series experiments I
did was nothing more than 2 dozen small co-deposited wires with various
additives.  Their test tubes were all placed in the
same water bath (in series for the same current, and zenors across the 
electrodes in glass tubes for
the same net voltage across each so the power inside each were roughly  the 
same). 
I then just compared them.  I did
not start with absolute measures, just rough relative measures from the
mean.  It allowed for rapid screening of
various additives.  You don’t have to
have a micrometer to see which piece of spaghetti is the longest – just line
them up. 

 Dennis Cravens Yes very hard to do IR temp sensing in a wet cell electrolytic 
system.Seems much easier in a dry gas system, which is a more useful result in 
any case
If your trying to measure heat generated in a substance(Which in fact is 
what your trying to measure) it strikes me that Calorimetry is probably the 
hardest way to do it

To stay in theme for this series of posts I'll take some liberties and 
rephrase
 "A wind tunnel is useless unless you can stick the whole plane in 
there..."The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the 
parameters necessary to build a plane.

I'm trying to understand the best way to build a LENR wind tunnel, and while 
eventually the goal is to have a macro system
that generates useful energy. The wind tunnel goal is to take data the 
value of the wind tunnel is in the data that allows  the end result ie the 
flying plane

If you agree that the goal is to find a repeatable  reliable result then 
quickly  directly sensing the production of heat in the material under test is
much more useful than perfect calorimetry that takes hours to get a result 
The obsession with calorimetry seems to be more a byproduct of the early 
history of this field than the best way to 
explore process and material options?
I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the sacred 
cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected
longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect for your 
opinions and only want to explore why and how not insult or denigrate.So if 
your at all put off by my responses, please accept my apology.

Paul

  

Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured

[James Bowery]

All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of
some minds here at vortex.  Let me suggest if you are going to founder on
the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go
for guidance to the world's  foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and
read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be
Subjective)" .

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal all
> of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe.  Of
> course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of
> predictions that are utter non sense.
>
>  Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they
> happen because it may take forever to get the information.  Remember, every
> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them
> as far as I know.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
>
>   If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete
> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a
> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the
> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry  wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are 
> >> making
> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally 
> typing
> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio 
> can
> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is
> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an
> impossibility.
> >
> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive
> means.
> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in
> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only
> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out)
> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur.
> >
> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes
> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success,
> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to
> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of
> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age
> > of the universe.
> >
> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up
> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop
> > up also.
> >
> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you
> > will need to go through Pi.
> >
> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that
> > it might never occur.
> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first
> > 100 digits?
> > For that matter does it show up at all?
> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever.
> >
> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the
> > further you search.
> >
> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
> >
> > Ah, didn't take long.
> >
> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U
> >
> > Fun video.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I have not seen the video,
> > You should.
> >
> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions
> > do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out.
> > Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could
> > check the validity of what the other version shows.
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or
> debunk), after all these years...
>

Srinivasan thought he replicated this at BARC. He got heat and tritium.
Then he spent 6 months at SRI trying to do it again. He finally concluded
that his results were caused by recombination. That was a noble effort.

He went back to India and tried again, looking for tritium only, with no
calorimetry. They saw some tritium this time, but not as much.

I recall some other people tried to replicate, without success. The results
were not encouraging.

I do not understand why Thermacore abandoned this. It is one of many
discouraging failures. The failure to follow through.

- Jed

[Vo]:Super-Super or more hype?

[Jones Beene]

This is a well done clip, and once again - hopes for the "bettery" are
building up.

http://vimeo.com/51873011

The power of "soot" ... really. 

Will this replace the niche that EEStor had carved out, except for ...
oops... a few technical problems?


<>

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jones Beene]

For the record - the Thermacore Ni-H gas-phase experiment is less well-known
than the electrolytic - but is available:

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

Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or
debunk), after all these years...


From: Jones Beene 

From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com 

The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems
seems iron clad.

The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems
seems less iron clad

Whoa. 

Thermacore ran both wet and gas-phase Ni-H cells for DARPA
continuously for over a year - with something over 100,000 Whr net gain -
and that is not iron clad?
<>

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Paul Breed  wrote:


> The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the
> parameters necessary to build a plane.
>

Along these lines, the people at the NRL in Washington are using a
microcalorimeter with a fast response rate. The sample is tiny.

You cannot tell where, within the same, the heat is coming from, unlike
with an IR camera.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Paul Breed]

>Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to
a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to
clobber the experiment. >Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary
calorimetry.

Yes very hard to do IR temp sensing in a wet cell electrolytic system.
Seems much easier in a dry gas system, which is a more useful result in any
case
If your trying to measure heat generated in a substance(Which in fact
is what your trying to measure) it strikes me that Calorimetry is probably
the hardest way to do it

To stay in theme for this series of posts I'll take some liberties and
rephrase
 "A wind tunnel is useless unless you can stick the whole plane in
there..."
The wright brothers tiny wind tunnel allowed them to measure the parameters
necessary to build a plane.

I'm trying to understand the best way to build a LENR wind tunnel, and
while eventually the goal is to have a macro system
that generates useful energy. The wind tunnel goal is to take data the
value of the wind tunnel is in the data that allows  the end result ie the
flying plane

If you agree that the goal is to find a repeatable  reliable result then
quickly  directly sensing the production of heat in the material under test
is
much more useful than perfect calorimetry that takes hours to get a
result

The obsession with calorimetry seems to be more a byproduct of the early
history of this field than the best way to
explore process and material options?

I realize that I've shown up here as a newbe and immediately gored the
sacred cows and questioned the answers of some of the most respected
longest contributing members on this list. I do so with great respect for
your opinions and only want to explore why and how not insult or denigrate.
So if your at all put off by my responses, please accept my apology.

Paul










On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Paul Breed  wrote:
>
>
>> The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you
>> in a matter of 200msec if a  potential sample under test
>> has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample.
>> . . .
>>
>
>> Is anyone doing this?
>>
>
> See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=952
>
> As Ed points out, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between
> electrolysis heat and anomalous heat. Sometimes you can tell though. The
> anomalous heat occurs in very small domains, and it comes and goes, as you
> see in that IR movie.
>
> Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to
> a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to
> clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary
> calorimetry.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com 

 

The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad.

 

The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad

 

Whoa. 

 

Thermacore ran both wet and gas-phase Ni-H cells for DARPA continuously for
over a year - with something over 100,000 Whr net gain - and that is not
iron clad?

RE: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

[Roarty, Francis X]

I don't know if the W-L or any of the other theories completely solve the 
mystery but  they certainly make some good points.. Their willingness to 
disassociate themselves from the strong force is refreshing, and the analogy of 
a nickel sponge full of hydrogen ions supports a linkage between quantum fields 
from the geometry with individual ions through oscillations. That environment 
by itself if proved correct would be the bootstrap mechanism that enables the 
next step..  It suggests  a two step process where the lattice / hydrogen must 
first contribute energy through some mechanism like Zawodny is suggesting to 
power a second step - we can't get something for nothing even if the power 
source is ZPE we know the reaction doesn't happen without the lattice + defects 
.. I don't pretend to know the second step - there are lots of good ideas out 
there but I do think we should concentrate harder on the first smaller step to 
get more clues about the second step.
Fran

From: DJ Cravens [mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

interesting frequencies.  We found 8.2 15.2, and 20.4  (but the higher one with 
on  rainy days - think H2O)


From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:15:01 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"
BTW, did everyone see  the Gizmag article "NASA's basement reactor" 
(http://m.gizmag.com/article/26309). It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I 
was intrigued by this section:

According to Zawodny, LENR isn't what was thought of as cold fusion and it 
doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear forces, 
which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The LENR process 
involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak forces into energy. 
Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a 
lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a 
sponge holds water.

The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy 
applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they 
become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to 
form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making 
them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the 
nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes 
the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing 
radiation.

The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than it 
needs to get it going. "It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work 
at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility," Zawodny said. "Between, 
say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our 
own controlled frequency."

Let the comments begin ...

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

[Terry Blanton]

Zawodny is a newcomer and doesn't have a clue.

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Paul Breed]

> H2 system generates photons having enough energy for some to exit the
apparatus

I 100% agree that detecting penetrating photons with some sort of GM tube
would be the almost ideal sensing scheme...
There are several problems with this scheme... its not very precise, ie If
one tests an array of 100 potential materials its
hard to know exactly which one makes detectable photons...

The case for excess heat in wet Pd-D systems seems iron clad.

The case for excess heat in dry H-Ni systems seems less iron clad

The case for detectable photons having enough energy to leave the device as
a stand in for excess heat seems even less iron clad...

In fact in Dr Storms how to replicate paper he points out that systems that
seem to make Tritium do not seem to make excess heat.

So if you optimize for maximum penetrating photon emission, its not
necessarily 100% correlated with heat...

Has the tie between apparatus generating GM detectable penetrating
radiation and excess heat in H-Ni systems been demonstrated by others?

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Paul Breed  wrote:


> The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you
> in a matter of 200msec if a  potential sample under test
> has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample.
> . . .
>

> Is anyone doing this?
>

See:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=952

As Ed points out, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between
electrolysis heat and anomalous heat. Sometimes you can tell though. The
anomalous heat occurs in very small domains, and it comes and goes, as you
see in that IR movie.

Another problem with this is that in order to bring the cathode surface to
a place where the IR camera can detect heat, you pretty much have to
clobber the experiment. Plus you make it impossible to do ordinary
calorimetry.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

[DJ Cravens]

interesting frequencies.  We found 8.2 15.2, and 20.4  (but the higher one with 
on  rainy days - think H2O)
 From: mgi...@gibbs.com
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:15:01 -0800
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

BTW, did everyone see  the Gizmag article "NASA's basement reactor" 
(http://m.gizmag.com/article/26309). It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I 
was intrigued by this section:


According to Zawodny, LENR isn’t what was thought of as cold fusion and it 
doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear forces, 
which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The LENR process 
involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak forces into energy. 
Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a 
lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a 
sponge holds water.


The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy 
applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they 
become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to 
form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making 
them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the 
nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes 
the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing 
radiation.


The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than it 
needs to get it going. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work 
at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said. “Between, 
say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our 
own controlled frequency.”


Let the comments begin ...
[mg]  

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:

The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give
> details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the manufacturing
> could be automated.
>

The testing described in "How to . . ." could also be automated. Or you
could hire grad students. That is why I said you need either one year or a
barrel of money. Money can substitute for time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

However, the reaction cannot be controlled and -- as Ed pointed out -- the
> material does not last . . .
>

Arata and others claim that nanoparticle gas loaded Pd lasts much longer
then electrochemically loaded bulk Pd, and it produces more stable heat.

I do not think the electrochemical technique can ever be used for a
practical source of energy. We should pursue it for scientific reasons, to
learn the nature of the reaction.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[Jones Beene]

... a temporary (or was that temporal?) aberration ... :)


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

Jay citing Zed?!

I'm coming 'Lizabeth!

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Edmund Storms]

The supplier made these samples 8 different ways. They did not give  
details. Yes, once the critical variables are mastered, the  
manufacturing could be automated. At this time, most of the variables  
are unknown.  That is the basic reason why LENR is so hard to cause.  
We do not understand the important variables. This understanding must  
be guided by a useful theory because too many variables are important  
to discover them all by chance, as is the present approach.


Ed
On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:

Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be  
automated?


Jed's original assertion was "Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested  
them and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked  
robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting  
from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good  
ones?"


That's only success within a limited context which is the duration  
of the experiments (or "tests" or whatever you'd like to call them).  
I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply  
that the technology of LENR is understood in any "deep" way or on  
the edge of practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's  
experience can't be sure if a sample will work or not.


[mg]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and  
can be removed from the cell and be restarted.  But, at some point,  
the energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited  
on the surface and so much stress is created by changes in  
composition that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR  
process.  This lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in  
using electrolysis to study LENR.  Nevertheless, the amount of power  
and the resulting extra energy is too great to be explained by any  
chemical process.  Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile,  
never to start again. Very frustrating!!


As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful  
criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if  
excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms  
internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must  
be free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas.   
Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation  
was also important.  Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd  
on an inert metal work and several other people have made  
codeposition make heat, although I have not had success with this  
method.  People keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe  
they have not yet looked at small enough scale to see the active  
sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range.


Ed




On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:


A question for Ed:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:


The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed  
stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met  
all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So,  
is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it  
a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones?


Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and  
repeatedly" ... how long did they work for? Are they still working?  
Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made?


[mg]

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

>
> That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the
> experiments (or "tests" or whatever you'd like to call them).
>

The entire process is an experiment. One continuous segment with one sample
is a test.



> I'm not pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that
> the technology of LENR is understood in any "deep" way or on the edge of
> practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't
> be sure if a sample will work or not.
>

I know everyone in this field and I do not know ANYONE who claims they
understand in a deep way, or that LENR is on the edge of practicality. Most
people I know with experience in industry, such as Fleischmann, Bockris and
Melich, say it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to bring it to
that edge.

The tests at Toyota showed that the reaction is capable of reaching the
power density and temperatures of a conventional fission reactor, so there
is no question that it is physically possible for this reaction to produce
useful energy. However, the reaction cannot be controlled and -- as Ed
pointed out -- the material does not last, so a practical, commercial
reactor is out of the question. If you tried to scale up and build one, it
would probably not work. Or it might work so well it blows your head off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Edmund Storms]

The problem with tis approach is the need to apply energy to get the  
process started. This takes the form of electrolytic power or  
increased temperature. As a result, the material starts hotter than  
the environment. The question is, Is this extra temperature natural or  
extra. Looking at the IR would not be sensitive enough to tell whether  
the extra temperature was normal or artificial.  That is  why I keep  
suggesting that the NAE be identified and made on purpose. This way  
the conditions needed to create LENR are present in advance.


I have found, like others, that the H2 system generates photons having  
enough energy for some to exit the apparatus. These can be detected  
easier than heat production and at a much lower level of reaction  
rate. I suggest this method be used instead of a calorimeter to detect  
the occurrence of LENR.  Besides, such radiation can only result from  
a nuclear reaction, so the effect is unambiguous, unlike calorimetry.


Ed


On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Paul Breed wrote:

If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the  
detecton tme and thus the cycle time is paramount.


A calorimeter is a slow sensing device

Building a reactor before one has gathered the "wind tunnel data"  
gives you Langley's result not the wright brothers result.


The writghts did not have a theory of lift they had a data set that  
told them when and how it occurred.


The what reacts and what does not and how to turn it on an off need  
to be worked BEFORE trying to build a commercially viable reactor.


What one really wants to measure is heat from the active material.  
The thing closest to the active material is the material itself...


The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to  
tell you in a matter of 200msec if a  potential sample under test

has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample.

If one does this the whole caliorimeter nightmare goes away... the  
experiments get easier to build and try easier to cycle through both  
materials,

and stimulation experiments?

Is anyone doing this?






On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
A question for Ed:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:


The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed  
stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met  
all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is  
that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a  
100% success rate, with the 4 good ones?


Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and  
repeatedly" ... how long did they work for? Are they still working?  
Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made?


[mg]

[Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"

[Mark Gibbs]

BTW, did everyone see  the Gizmag article "NASA's basement reactor" (
http://m.gizmag.com/article/26309). It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I
was intrigued by this section:

According to Zawodny, LENR isn’t what was thought of as cold fusion and it
doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear
forces, which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The
LENR process involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak
forces into energy. Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or
plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds
ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.

The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy
applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they
become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons
to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms,
making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons
in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.
This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous
ionizing radiation.

The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than
it needs to get it going. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have
to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said.
“Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources
to make our own controlled frequency.”


Let the comments begin ...

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Mark Gibbs]

Thanks, Ed. How were the samples made? Is it a process that can be
automated?

Jed's original assertion was "Ed stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them
and identified 4 that met all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and
repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes?
Or is it a 100% success rate, with the 4 good ones?"

That's only success within a limited context which is the duration of the
experiments (or "tests" or whatever you'd like to call them). I'm not
pooh-poohing the results but I think that to claim or imply that the
technology of LENR is understood in any "deep" way or on the edge of
practicality is a little optimistic if someone with Ed's experience can't
be sure if a sample will work or not.

[mg]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be
> removed from the cell and be restarted.  But, at some point, the energy
> production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on the surface
> and so much stress is created by changes in composition that the active
> cracks grow too big to support the LENR process.  This lack of stability is
> one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis to study LENR.
>  Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting extra energy is too
> great to be explained by any chemical process.  Even creation of tritium
> stops after a awhile, never to start again. Very frustrating!!
>
> As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful
> criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if
> excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms internal
> cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be free of
> poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas.  Violante determined
> that crystal size and its preferred orientation was also important.
>  Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on an inert metal work and
> several other people have made codeposition make heat, although I have not
> had success with this method.  People keep looking for the critical
> feature, but I believe they have not yet looked at small enough scale to
> see the active sites, which I believe are in the 1-5 nm range.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
> A question for Ed:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>> The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated
>> with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his
>> criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success
>> rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the
>> 4 good ones?
>>
>
> Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how
> long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they
> worked? Can working duplicates be made?
>
> [mg]
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how
> long did they work for? . . .
>

As I mentioned, see also Ed's paper "How to . . ."



> Are they still working? Do you know why they worked? Can working
> duplicates be made?
>

Yes! You have to be skilled in the art. Plus you need either a year of free
time or a barrel of money. Or both.

I am writing a presentation about that very subject, with help from Ed,
Mike and Mel. Quoting myself:

"People often ask me: How do you replicate cold fusion? What’s the
secret?!? There are many valuable papers in the archive, but for a
do-it-yourself guide, I like these three:

Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, *Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems*,
Final Report. 1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. [Table 10]

Cravens, D. *Factors Affecting Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF Cells*.
in *Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion*. 1993. Lahaina, Maui:
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.

Storms, E., *How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect*. Fusion Technol.,
1996. 29: p. 261.]

[skipping 2 pages]

. . . It took Ed about a year to test all 90 [cathodes].

So, that is how you replicate! Ask Johnson Matthey for 90 pieces of
hydrogen filter palladium. Master the techniques described by Cravens.
Then, spend a year of your life testing them. With any luck you will find a
few that work. If you don’t, get another 90 and start over.

I said I would show you how to do cold fusion. I did not say it was easy. .
. ."

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi says (in answer to Brian Josephson) Publication and Plant Visits

[Alan Fletcher]

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=785&cpage=3#comment-630904

Brian Josephson
February 20th, 2013 at 4:21 AM

In view of the repeated and unexplained delays, it would be comforting to those 
wondering what is happening if your Third Party would issue their own 
announcement, summarising progress or otherwise. Perhaps this view, which I am 
sure is shared by many others, can be passed on to them.


Andrea Rossi
February 20th, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Dear Prof. Brian Josephson:
The work of the Indipendent Third Party probably will finish in March. The 
publication probably will be made by the end of March or close to it and it 
will be made whatever the results, indipendently from us. In the meantime we 
are completing the construction of the first non military 1 MW plant. You are 
in the list of the persons that will be invited to visit it. The timing of 
their work does not depend on me: you are among the most important scientists 
of the World and a Nobel Prize, so you know perfectly how can work a validation 
of a thing that is as complex as ours.
In the meantime we are completing the construction of the first 1 MW plant for 
civil operation. You are in the list of the scientists that will be invited to 
visit it.
Thank you for your attention.
Warm Regards
A.R.



Andrea Rossi
February 21st, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Dear Andre Blum:
The visits will need the permission of the owner of the plant. When visits will 
be allowable, we will check all the requests.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[Axil Axil]

 The lowering of the coulomb barrier might be the result of a
distructive Fano resonance caused by the quantum mechanical interaction of
the lattice phonon and the electron near a discontinuity in the metal
lattice. My study of the Fano resonance is current ongoing.   Thoughts?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  There’s more…
>
> ** **
>
> Speaking of RF frequencies and surface resonance triggering – and since
> Ni-H reactions can be significantly different from Pd-D  (and since we have
> not heard from Frank Z on this topic yet) … here is a bit more information.
> This is a chart which shows a rather precise linear - and tight -
>  temperature-to-frequency correlation for Ni, near the Nickel Curie Point.
> Many results going back to Arata, including Ahern and others - find Ni-H
> triggering near the Curie Temp – 358 C.
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.overunity.com/10039/ground-breaking-work-of-frank-znidarsic-cold-fusion-anti-gravity-explained/dlattach/attach/102481/image//
> 
>
> ** **
>
> I do not know where he got this information – so maybe he will share that
> with us. This would not apply to Pd-D.
>
> ** **
>
> If accurate, this might indicate that focusing on the host material is as
> important as spin-flipping of proton and also the wisdom of getting hold of
> VHF transmission equipment capable of very precise frequency stimulation.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* DJ Cravens 
>
> ** **
>
> Several areas seem to be of interest:
>
> check out http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf
> Letts and I found resonances at around 8, 15 and 20 THz related to the
> phonon
> stimulation of the Pd D lattice. These are near surface.
>
> and RF around 83 and 365 MHz
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf
> These relate to the the flipping of the deuteron, protons and neutrons in
> the
> B field of the orbiting electrons.  These are likely surface effects due
> to the skin effect.
>
> I personally like to do a typical NMR frequency (6.5 MHz/ tesla) on the
> deuterium
> with an applied B field.   B fields seem to help.
>
> But most of these only work for "triggering" the effect.  It seems to
> continue after
> the initial stimulation.  (that is why it is hard to just scan
> frequencies- we need an off
> to compare to).
>
> Oh yes, in the early days a few commented on radiation used for triggering.
> I typically add Th to my metal formations which may help (via its alpha
> emission not
> to mention its "thirst" for deuterium)
>
>  Dennis Cravens
>  --
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:12:19 -0800
> From: p...@rasdoc.com
> To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:First post about LENR
>
> Much discussion in the LENR world focuses on cracks resonances etc
>
> ** **
>
> Has anyone in this field done a systematic search for resonances on the
> surface of bulk materials,
>
> ** **
>
> ie  stimulate H or D loaded samples with radiation from DC to Xray
> searching for a resonant point?
>
> ** **
>
> A lot of the variation in LENR could be attributed to a very high Q
> structure that only occasionally gets randomly stimulated.
>
> ** **
>
> Once stimulated the reactions themselves keep it "ringing" and they even
> occasionally run away...
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Paul
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Paul Breed]

If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the detecton tme
and thus the cycle time is paramount.

A calorimeter is a slow sensing device

Building a reactor before one has gathered the "wind tunnel data" gives
you Langley's result not the wright brothers result.

The writghts did not have a theory of lift they had a data set that told
them when and how it occurred.

The what reacts and what does not and how to turn it on an off need to be
worked BEFORE trying to build a commercially viable reactor.

What one really wants to measure is heat from the active material. The
thing closest to the active material is the material itself...

The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you
in a matter of 200msec if a  potential sample under test
has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample.

If one does this the whole caliorimeter nightmare goes away... the
experiments get easier to build and try easier to cycle through both
materials,
and stimulation experiments?

Is anyone doing this?






On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> A question for Ed:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>> The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated
>> with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his
>> criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success
>> rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the
>> 4 good ones?
>>
>
> Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how
> long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they
> worked? Can working duplicates be made?
>
> [mg]
>

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:

All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can be
> removed from the cell and be restarted.
>

Ed described this here:

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

See also:

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

F&P got some bulk Pd cells to run for up to 158 days. See the table at the
end of this paper:

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

Some did not work at all, as you see.

Mizuno and most others I know lose the cathodes in the end with destructive
testing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Edmund Storms]

All electrolytic cathodes eventually die. Many work for weeks and can  
be removed from the cell and be restarted.  But, at some point, the  
energy production stops. I suspect so much material is deposited on  
the surface and so much stress is created by changes in composition  
that the active cracks grow too big to support the LENR process.  This  
lack of stability is one of the major limitatons in using electrolysis  
to study LENR.  Nevertheless, the amount of power and the resulting  
extra energy is too great to be explained by any chemical process.   
Even creation of tritium stops after a awhile, never to start again.  
Very frustrating!!


As for why some worked and some did not, I know of only two useful  
criteria. The Pd must load to high D/Pd and it can only do this if  
excessive cracks do not form throughout the metal. Most Pd forms  
internal cracks I call excess volume. In addition, the surface must be  
free of poisons that slow reaction with the resulting D2 gas.   
Violante determined that crystal size and its preferred orientation  
was also important.  Nevertheless, I have made thin deposits of Pd on  
an inert metal work and several other people have made codeposition  
make heat, although I have not had success with this method.  People  
keep looking for the critical feature, but I believe they have not yet  
looked at small enough scale to see the active sites, which I believe  
are in the 1-5 nm range.


Ed



On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote:


A question for Ed:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:


The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed  
stated with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met  
all of his criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is  
that a 5% success rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a  
100% success rate, with the 4 good ones?


Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and  
repeatedly" ... how long did they work for? Are they still working?  
Do you know why they worked? Can working duplicates be made?


[mg]

RE: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[DJ Cravens]

when going through the curie point the stored energy must be released 
somewhere. Pulsing magnetic fields do seem to trigger effects: see 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDpracticalta.pdfslide 14 RF doesn't 
work too well on bulks and electrochemical due to the skin effect.  The flip 
side is interesting however, listening to an active cell "sing".  Normally 
around 20-30 MHz and around80 and 100 for mine.  But that could just be ringing 
from the bubbles causing shot noise in the circuits.  (???) Dennis Cravens Oh 
you might want to check the curie point of Ni alloys and Pd alloys (with Co or 
Ni impurities).  I see a chart in my old Amer. Inst. of Phy. handbook- ed3 a 
little Ni (a few percent- extrapolated)  in Pd drops its curie point down to 50 
to 70 C.  Recall heat pulses can trigger Pd system about there. That is why you 
need to run them >50C which most people miss for some reason. - just my view.
 From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:First post about LENR
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:55:43 -0800

















There’s more…

 

Speaking of RF frequencies
and surface resonance triggering – and since Ni-H reactions can be
significantly different from Pd-D  (and since we have not heard from Frank
Z on this topic yet) … here is a bit more information. This is a chart which
shows a rather precise linear - and tight -  temperature-to-frequency
correlation for Ni, near the Nickel Curie Point. Many results going back to
Arata, including Ahern and others - find Ni-H triggering near the Curie Temp –
358 C.

 

http://www.overunity.com/10039/ground-breaking-work-of-frank-znidarsic-cold-fusion-anti-gravity-explained/dlattach/attach/102481/image//

 

I do not know where he got
this information – so maybe he will share that with us. This would not
apply to Pd-D.

 

If accurate, this might
indicate that focusing on the host material is as important as spin-flipping of
proton and also the wisdom of getting hold of VHF transmission equipment
capable of very precise frequency stimulation.

 

 





 





 



 





 





 







  

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Alan Fletcher]

(Replying to Jed on success rate)
Earlier discussion starting at  

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71026.html
#1 150/150

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf

Abstract
—We have run over 150 experiments
using two
different cell/calorimeter designs. Excess power has 
*** always been seen ***
using Q pulses tuned to the resonance of
palladium and nickel hydrides in pressurized vessels. Excess
energies of up to 100% have been seen using this excitation
method.
#2  Comment on Arata --- I don't have an actual paper

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71367.html
#3 Miles  6/6

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg71369.html
#4 -- The only one I CAN'T find :  didn't Celani report that the
entire wire was acttive?

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Mark Gibbs]

A question for Ed:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


> The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated
> with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his
> criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success
> rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the
> 4 good ones?
>

Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how
long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they
worked? Can working duplicates be made?

[mg]

Re: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[Terry Blanton]

Jay citing Zed?!

I'm coming 'Lizabeth!

RE: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[Jones Beene]

There's more.

 

Speaking of RF frequencies and surface resonance triggering - and since Ni-H
reactions can be significantly different from Pd-D  (and since we have not
heard from Frank Z on this topic yet) . here is a bit more information. This
is a chart which shows a rather precise linear - and tight -
temperature-to-frequency correlation for Ni, near the Nickel Curie Point.
Many results going back to Arata, including Ahern and others - find Ni-H
triggering near the Curie Temp - 358 C.

 

http://www.overunity.com/10039/ground-breaking-work-of-frank-znidarsic-cold-
fusion-anti-gravity-explained/dlattach/attach/102481/image//
 

 

I do not know where he got this information - so maybe he will share that
with us. This would not apply to Pd-D.

 

If accurate, this might indicate that focusing on the host material is as
important as spin-flipping of proton and also the wisdom of getting hold of
VHF transmission equipment capable of very precise frequency stimulation.

 

 

From: DJ Cravens 

 

Several areas seem to be of interest: 
 
check out http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdf
Letts and I found resonances at around 8, 15 and 20 THz related to the
phonon 
stimulation of the Pd D lattice. These are near surface. 
 
and RF around 83 and 365 MHz 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf
These relate to the the flipping of the deuteron, protons and neutrons in
the
B field of the orbiting electrons.  These are likely surface effects due to
the skin effect. 
 
I personally like to do a typical NMR frequency (6.5 MHz/ tesla) on the
deuterium
with an applied B field.   B fields seem to help.
 
But most of these only work for "triggering" the effect.  It seems to
continue after
the initial stimulation.  (that is why it is hard to just scan frequencies-
we need an off
to compare to).
 
Oh yes, in the early days a few commented on radiation used for triggering.
I typically add Th to my metal formations which may help (via its alpha
emission not
to mention its "thirst" for deuterium)

 Dennis Cravens

  _  

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:12:19 -0800
From: p...@rasdoc.com
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:First post about LENR

Much discussion in the LENR world focuses on cracks resonances etc

 

Has anyone in this field done a systematic search for resonances on the
surface of bulk materials,

 

ie  stimulate H or D loaded samples with radiation from DC to Xray searching
for a resonant point?

 

A lot of the variation in LENR could be attributed to a very high Q
structure that only occasionally gets randomly stimulated.

 

Once stimulated the reactions themselves keep it "ringing" and they even
occasionally run away...

 

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II

[Edmund Storms]

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:




On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something  
about how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list.  I  
got an A in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when I was in college, so  
if you're knocking out that much of a level of interest, you'll be  
removing most Vorts.


I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone. You are asking a question  
that requires a great deal of my time to fully answer. If I leave a  
gap in my answer, other questions follow. I simply do not have the  
time to answer all questions. Besides, I have also made my opinions  
about the role of BEC clear in the past, so this idea is not of  
interest to me. I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.




Your suggestion is not consistent with this knowledge.  I know it is  
fun to speculate and I don't want to insult your interest, but  
describing the reasons why this suggestion is not correct would  
require too much time.


***You have enough time for some of us to see how dismissive you  
are, and you even have enough time to have been flat wrong about  
laser cooling with respect to LENR.  But you don't have enough time  
to explain this little aspect of your theory.  Got it.


OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry



 I'm afraid you either need to take my word for this or undertake a  
study of how radiation and LENR actually behave.

***I doubt taking your word for it will be productive.


Fine, your choice.


I describe the observed radiation in my book and the behavior of  
radiation as it passes through matter can be obtained from many text  
books about nuclear physics.
***Sounds like Occham's Razor is too good for you.  Sorry to see you  
rejecting my humble "small and imperfect description of a plausible  
part of the process".


I still believe this and I have been patiently answering questions and  
engaging in lengthly discussions for years, most recently on Vortex.   
I could have just as easily ignored your question. Instead I respected  
you enough to tell you that I did not have time to give you the answer  
you wanted and suggested you attempt to find the answer on your own.   
Apparently, that approach was not useful. Sorry.




Ed


Maybe you just need a vacation.  Here's something you wrote in 2007:
Reply to my message (11/24/07):
  Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism,  
either implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. Criticizing  
theories that are either wrong or not useful gets us nowhere. The  
only useful activity is finding out from Nature what is actually  
happening, rather than making assumptions about the process. I made  
my previous comments only because a few people showed interest and  
because I object when theories are presented as real and useful when  
they are obviously wrong. I have no problem when people make efforts  
to understand the phenomenon with humility and an acknowledgment  
that their efforts are only a small and imperfect description of a  
plausible part of the process. Such an approach allows us to work  
together to achieve a sincere understanding, rather than an ego trip  
for a few people.

RE: [Vo]:First post about LENR

[DJ Cravens]

Several areas seem to be of interest:  check out 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinprogresson.pdfLetts and I found 
resonances at around 8, 15 and 20 THz related to the phonon stimulation of the 
Pd D lattice. These are near surface.  and RF around 83 and 365 MHz 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdfThese relate to the the 
flipping of the deuteron, protons and neutrons in theB field of the orbiting 
electrons.  These are likely surface effects due to the skin effect.  I 
personally like to do a typical NMR frequency (6.5 MHz/ tesla) on the 
deuteriumwith an applied B field.   B fields seem to help. But most of these 
only work for "triggering" the effect.  It seems to continue afterthe initial 
stimulation.  (that is why it is hard to just scan frequencies- we need an 
offto compare to). Oh yes, in the early days a few commented on radiation used 
for triggering.I typically add Th to my metal formations which may help (via 
its alpha emission notto mention its "thirst" for deuterium)
 Dennis CravensDate: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:12:19 -0800
From: p...@rasdoc.com
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:First post about LENR

Much discussion in the LENR world focuses on cracks resonances etc
Has anyone in this field done a systematic search for resonances on the surface 
of bulk materials,
ie  stimulate H or D loaded samples with radiation from DC to Xray searching 
for a resonant point?

A lot of the variation in LENR could be attributed to a very high Q structure 
that only occasionally gets randomly stimulated.
Once stimulated the reactions themselves keep it "ringing" and they even 
occasionally run away...


Paul



  

[Vo]:First post about LENR

[Paul Breed]

Much discussion in the LENR world focuses on cracks resonances etc

Has anyone in this field done a systematic search for resonances on the
surface of bulk materials,

ie  stimulate H or D loaded samples with radiation from DC to Xray
searching for a resonant point?

A lot of the variation in LENR could be attributed to a very high Q
structure that only occasionally gets randomly stimulated.

Once stimulated the reactions themselves keep it "ringing" and they even
occasionally run away...


Paul

Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


> 1. There is anomalous heat generation in most experiments which follow the
> "Craven and Letts" (and/or Storms) criteria
>

The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated
with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his
criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success
rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the
4 good ones?

Along the same lines, when Bockris looked for tritium in 100 cells at a
time, I think he always found a few that produced it. I think he told me 10
to 30 of them worked. So is that a 10% success rate, or a 100% success rate
looking at the whole batch? I think the question is meaningless. If
one-tenth of your grass seeds germinate no one would claim that proves
grass does not grow.

I like the success rate for the top quark. 1 in 10E16 collisions, seen
maybe twice at only one laboratory, and never independently replicated. The
people doing experiments like that criticize *us* for doing irreproducible
science! That's chutzpah, that is.

- Jed