Re: [Vo]:LENR clues in a 6/30/13 crop circle?

[mixent]

In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:50:07 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>For those with an open mind
>http://cropcircleconnector.com/2013/Cavallo/comments.html

 + 32S => 39K + 1H + 53.045 MeV

Clean reaction because both 39K and 1H are stable, & the energy is carried by
the proton (mostly).


Also possible:

2H+2H+2H+2H+32S => 36Ar + 4He + 54.334 MeV

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:putting some things together

[ChemE Stewart]

Axil,

I agree with a lot of your thinking, at least that which I can understand
at this point.

For those interested about larger strings in the universe, here is a quote
from Brian Green, an M Theory Physicist:

Cosmic strings  are fundamental
strings that have been blown up to cosmic scales during inflation.
Being very massive, they would reveal their presence via gravitational
lensing and leave a spectacular signature. “D-strings joining with
fundamental strings at junctions could lead to a network of strings in the
sky, which would be incontrovertible evidence for string theory”, says Brian
Green 

And here is the sky over Huntsville Alabama below the cold front/ jet
stream that connected to Hurricane Sandy, which I believe are the same
strings that created the gravitational waves I showed earlier.



http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/10/hurricane-sandy-creates-incredible-light-display-over-alabama/3767/

These are called ice halos and sun dogs.  I believe particle strings are
creating the ice crystals along their multi-body orbits.

We are kidding ourselves to think air and water vapor alone can create that
level of destruction on Earth.

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Thursday, July 4, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:

> I have put some posts together in a more understandable compendium.
>
>
> In pursuit of a better understanding of LENR, I wanted to find out what
> was behind some of the latest ideas about the nucleus as recently developed
> by orthodox physics. This includes strong and weak force equivalence called
> in the physics game “S-duality”.
>
> At first glance, it seems to me that the guy who thought this “S-duality”
> idea up does not believe in quarks.
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9407087.pdf
>
> [color=#0040FF][i][b]Electric-Magnetic Duality, Monopole Condensation, And
> Confinement In N = 2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory[/b][/i][/color]
>
> N. Seiberg
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
> Rutgers University,
>
> N. Seiberg bases his theories on monopoles and Dyons
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyon
>
> “In physics, a dyon is a hypothetical particle in 4-dimensional theories
> with both electric and magnetic charges. A dyon with a zero electric charge
> is usually referred to as a magnetic monopole. Many grand unified theories
> predict the existence of both magnetic monopoles and dyons.
>
> Dyons were first proposed[1] by Julian Schwinger in 1969 as a
> phenomenological alternative to quarks. He extended the Dirac quantization
> condition to the dyon and used the model to predict the existence of a
> particle with the properties of the J/ψ meson prior to its discovery in
> 1974.”
>
> Schwinger was a true believer in cold fusion and a Nobel Prize winner who
> was ostracized for that belief by the scientific community.
>
> Schwinger was hands down smarter than Richard Feynman.
>
> After 10 years, these “out of the box” ideas as gaining some traction
> among the who’s who in physics.
>
> The Higgs theory fits into all this nicely.
>
> IMHO, I think that the roots of LENR and zero point energy lies deep
> inside this rat’s nest of incomprehensible nuclear concepts and string
> theory.
>
> One idea that string theory has advanced is equivalence between theories
> even if the theories all look different mathematically.
>
> Five consistent versions of string theory were developed before it was
> realized in the mid-1990s that these theories could be obtained as
> different limits of a conjectured eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.
>
> In quantum field theory, Seiberg duality, conjectured by Nathan Seiberg,
> is an S-duality relating two different supersymmetric QCDs. Seiberg was
> able to put the two theories together into a combined duel theory. The two
> theories are not identical, but they agree at low energies. More precisely
> after some math adjustments involving the gauge coupling constant, both
> theories behave in the same way.
>
>
> Seiberg has been able to avoid mind lock about his theory from the quark
> lovers because of the mathematical equivalence mechanism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiberg_duality
>
> This also involves an interchange of the electrically charged particles
> (quarks) and magnetic monopoles.
>
> The roots of these ideas comes from the strong-weak duality derived from
> the generalization of the electro-magnetic symmetry of Maxwell's equations.
> 
> Reference:
> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf
>
> [color=#0040FF][i][b]Experimental observation and analysis of action of
> light magnetic monopoles on multilayer surfaces[/b][/i][/color]
>
>
> I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic anomalies
> that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those reported by
> LeClair in his cavatation experiment.
>
>
> This “particle” could well be a magneti

Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question

[Jack Cole]

That makes sense to me.  I suppose he hasn't done so because of the high
cost of material.  I may have to watch his videos again to see if he
addressed this.  I know he has put a great deal of thought into the
calorimetry, but it needs to be scaled up.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters, including the type
>> that can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray collision. These devices
>> are fundamentally different in design from what Swartz uses, and what other
>> cold fusion researchers use.
>>
>
> The NRL and Tsinghua U. used conventional microcalorimeters.
>
> The difference between an ordinary calorimeter and microcalorimeter
> resembles the difference between a light microscope and an S.E.M.
>
> Swartz is using an ordinary (macro?) calorimeter at the limits of
> sensitivity. Any time you push an instrument to its limits you are asking
> for trouble. If you can, I recommend you boost the strength of the signal
> rather than trying to make a more sensitive instrument to detect it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Bob Higgins]

I believe in this vintage of the HotCat, the central axis was open to
flowing environmental air.  That is why the inside of the stainless inner
tube would be painted black - to help with radiation from the inside (not
that there is very much radiation - only from the ends).  The central axis
would mostly deliver heat via convection.

The 2 coaxial inner tubes (that appear to be only a single tube) is the
only logical place to contain the ingredients.  Penon lists the components
and there were only 4 observable components.  As a welded unit, the central
cylinder would appear as a single part - the welded coaxial reactor cell.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> From: Bob Higgins
>
> The photo links you supplied appear to be from Fabio Penon's

report of 8/7/2012.  In this report, he states that this inner tube is

stainless steel painted with a "black coating, heat resistant to 1200C".  He

also says that in this early HotCat, the outer cylinder is painted

stainless.


> Yes, I agree that these images are not the December HotCat, but OTOH ...
> the
> main ingredient in black IR coatings is carborundum :-)
>
> Also, it appears that the inner stainless tube is open to

the air (thru) and it is not stated where the ingredients are contained.

The paint appears to be to maximize the emissivity In this older HotCat

I surmise that the inner SS tube may actually be comprised of 2 coaxial

tubes with the ingredients between them in a thin layer.


> Interesting - why do you think there are two coaxial tubes? What is along
> the axis - just a vacuum?
>
> Then the ends are welded closed (hot or cold welded) and it

looks like a single, thick monolithic stainless tube.  The Penon report

states that the inner tube is painted on the inside and the outside.


>

Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters, including the type that
> can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray collision. These devices are
> fundamentally different in design from what Swartz uses, and what other
> cold fusion researchers use.
>

The NRL and Tsinghua U. used conventional microcalorimeters.

The difference between an ordinary calorimeter and microcalorimeter
resembles the difference between a light microscope and an S.E.M.

Swartz is using an ordinary (macro?) calorimeter at the limits of
sensitivity. Any time you push an instrument to its limits you are asking
for trouble. If you can, I recommend you boost the strength of the signal
rather than trying to make a more sensitive instrument to detect it.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

The photo links you supplied appear to be from Fabio Penon's
report of 8/7/2012.  In this report, he states that this inner tube is
stainless steel painted with a "black coating, heat resistant to 1200C".  He
also says that in this early HotCat, the outer cylinder is painted
stainless.  

Yes, I agree that these images are not the December HotCat, but OTOH ... the
main ingredient in black IR coatings is carborundum :-)

Also, it appears that the inner stainless tube is open to
the air (thru) and it is not stated where the ingredients are contained.
The paint appears to be to maximize the emissivity In this older HotCat
I surmise that the inner SS tube may actually be comprised of 2 coaxial
tubes with the ingredients between them in a thin layer.  

Interesting - why do you think there are two coaxial tubes? What is along
the axis - just a vacuum?

Then the ends are welded closed (hot or cold welded) and it
looks like a single, thick monolithic stainless tube.  The Penon report
states that the inner tube is painted on the inside and the outside.

One scenario that fits the circumstances is that the first HotCat did have
stainless tubes painted with carborundum paint, which is the most common
blackbody coating. Whether or not the other ingredients in such a paint
would hinder plasmons or not is unknown, but for whatever reason they
(Rossi) may have decided to use an SiC tube for its greater high temperature
strength in the December HotCat.

... or not. Once again, we have too little information. It is clear to me
that stainless alone is unacceptable at these temperatures without some kind
of support, such as being nested in a ceramic tube and the smart choice
would be SiC.

Did you blow the image up?  (thanks to Alan for having all
of this info handy) 
I could be wrong, but the tube in question still looks to be
far too thick to be blackened stainless - and there is no sign of metal at
all - it looks black all the way in. Plus there is no sign of the markings
of a hammered-in fitting which would cause metal damage. I think its
thickness and color is consistent with SiC and the stainless capsule has
been removed. 
The lack of an end cap (or evidence that one was ever there)
also makes me think that this tube is not steel.
From: Bob Higgins 
Jones,  I believe you are mistaken.  The
bottom picture shows the thick alumina (probably not high purity, but rather
an AlSiMag blend) with the slots for the resistor wires in the middle.
Inside this is only the stainless tube - blackened by the refractory sealant
they put over that whole end in that vintage of HotCat (the ends are
different on the new design of the "Independent Test".  Then there is the
outer tube about 4-5mm thick which we are told is SiN (plausible).  I don't
think there is anything between the alumina resistor assembly and the
stainless tube.
 
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jones Beene
 wrote:


From: Jed Rothwell

If Rossi was using corundum,
then carborundum would seem
like an improvement, but it is important to
track down the actual
composition of what was used in the December
test.

I asked about this while
correcting typos in the paper. One
of the authors told me it was "corundum,
corindone in Italian."


Thanks - it is a bit of a surprise. It is
true that the fluted cylinder with
the slots - which holds the resistance wire
could easily be corundum which
is light-colored. Carborundum is blacker
than black.

This picture on Alan's site shows the proper
coloration of corundum


http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_07A.png

But this picture, below it - shows a black
cylinder inside the HotCat where
another separate cylinder should be, and it
is not light colored and not
stainless.


http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_08A.png

Therefore I am still of the opinion - but
without any real evidence other
than this picture, that the ceramic which
ho

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Bob Higgins]

The photo links you supplied appear to be from Fabio Penon's report of
8/7/2012.  In this report, he states that this inner tube is stainless
steel painted with a "black coating, heat resistant to 1200C".  He also
says that in this early HotCat, the outer cylinder is painted stainless.
 Also, it appears that the inner stainless tube is open to the air (thru)
and it is not stated where the ingredients are contained.  The paint
appears to be to maximize the emissivity.

In this older HotCat I surmise that the inner SS tube may actually be
comprised of 2 coaxial tubes with the ingredients between them in a thin
layer.  Then the ends are welded closed (hot or cold welded) and it looks
like a single, thick monolithic stainless tube.  The Penon report states
that the inner tube is painted on the inside and the outside.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Bob,
>
> ** **
>
> Did you blow the image up?  (thanks to Alan for having all of this info
> handy)
>
> ** **
>
> I could be wrong, but the tube in question still looks to be far too thick
> to be blackened stainless - and there is no sign of metal at all – it looks
> black all the way in. Plus there is no sign of the markings of a
> hammered-in fitting which would cause metal damage. I think its thickness
> and color is consistent with SiC and the stainless capsule has been
> removed. 
>
> ** **
>
> The lack of an end cap (or evidence that one was ever there) also makes me
> think that this tube is not steel.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins 
>
> ** **
>
> Jones,  I believe you are mistaken.  The bottom picture shows the thick
> alumina (probably not high purity, but rather an AlSiMag blend) with the
> slots for the resistor wires in the middle.  Inside this is only the
> stainless tube - blackened by the refractory sealant they put over that
> whole end in that vintage of HotCat (the ends are different on the new
> design of the "Independent Test".  Then there is the outer tube about 4-5mm
> thick which we are told is SiN (plausible).  I don't think there is
> anything between the alumina resistor assembly and the stainless tube.
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:**
> **
>
>
>
> From: Jed Rothwell
>
> If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem
> like an improvement, but it is important to track down the actual
> composition of what was used in the December test.
>
> I asked about this while correcting typos in the paper. One
> of the authors told me it was "corundum, corindone in Italian."
>
>
> Thanks - it is a bit of a surprise. It is true that the fluted cylinder
> with
> the slots - which holds the resistance wire could easily be corundum which
> is light-colored. Carborundum is blacker than black.
>
> This picture on Alan's site shows the proper coloration of corundum
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_07A.png
>
> But this picture, below it - shows a black cylinder inside the HotCat where
> another separate cylinder should be, and it is not light colored and not
> stainless.
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_08A.png
>
> Therefore I am still of the opinion - but without any real evidence other
> than this picture, that the ceramic which holds the stainless steel capsule
> is carborundum or SiC.
>
> Jones
>

[Vo]:putting some things together

[Axil Axil]

I have put some posts together in a more understandable compendium.


In pursuit of a better understanding of LENR, I wanted to find out what was
behind some of the latest ideas about the nucleus as recently developed by
orthodox physics. This includes strong and weak force equivalence called in
the physics game "S-duality".

At first glance, it seems to me that the guy who thought this "S-duality"
idea up does not believe in quarks.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9407087.pdf

[color=#0040FF][i][b]Electric-Magnetic Duality, Monopole Condensation, And
Confinement In N = 2 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory[/b][/i][/color]

N. Seiberg
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rutgers University,

N. Seiberg bases his theories on monopoles and Dyons

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

"In physics, a dyon is a hypothetical particle in 4-dimensional theories
with both electric and magnetic charges. A dyon with a zero electric charge
is usually referred to as a magnetic monopole. Many grand unified theories
predict the existence of both magnetic monopoles and dyons.

Dyons were first proposed[1] by Julian Schwinger in 1969 as a
phenomenological alternative to quarks. He extended the Dirac quantization
condition to the dyon and used the model to predict the existence of a
particle with the properties of the J/ψ meson prior to its discovery in
1974."

Schwinger was a true believer in cold fusion and a Nobel Prize winner who
was ostracized for that belief by the scientific community.

Schwinger was hands down smarter than Richard Feynman.

After 10 years, these "out of the box" ideas as gaining some traction among
the who's who in physics.

The Higgs theory fits into all this nicely.

IMHO, I think that the roots of LENR and zero point energy lies deep inside
this rat's nest of incomprehensible nuclear concepts and string theory.

One idea that string theory has advanced is equivalence between theories
even if the theories all look different mathematically.

Five consistent versions of string theory were developed before it was
realized in the mid-1990s that these theories could be obtained as
different limits of a conjectured eleven-dimensional theory called M-theory.

In quantum field theory, Seiberg duality, conjectured by Nathan Seiberg, is
an S-duality relating two different supersymmetric QCDs. Seiberg was able
to put the two theories together into a combined duel theory. The two
theories are not identical, but they agree at low energies. More precisely
after some math adjustments involving the gauge coupling constant, both
theories behave in the same way.


Seiberg has been able to avoid mind lock about his theory from the quark
lovers because of the mathematical equivalence mechanism.

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

This also involves an interchange of the electrically charged particles
(quarks) and magnetic monopoles.

The roots of these ideas comes from the strong-weak duality derived from
the generalization of the electro-magnetic symmetry of Maxwell's equations.

Reference:
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf

[color=#0040FF][i][b]Experimental observation and analysis of action of
light magnetic monopoles on multilayer surfaces[/b][/i][/color]


I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic anomalies
that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those reported by
LeClair in his cavatation experiment.


This "particle" could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile well
beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, this
vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces nuclear
reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature.


LeClair may have erroneously connected the water crystal that he sees with
the action of this magnetic vortex current.


If this current as large enough, this vortex currents may well be capable
of passing though solid obstructions such as reactor walls as has been
reported by LeClair and with ball lightning.


The referenced paper shows that these vortexes can travel a considerable
distance from there points of creation and are very light in mass and may
well be massless.


LeClair has presented clear experimental evidence showing the action and
mobility of these vortexes and so have STANISLAV V. ADAMENKO  and VLADIMIR
I. VYSOTSKII  in the above reference.

There is a LENR strength component that changes the character and the types
of nuclear processes and transmutation produces that are manifest in
various LENR reactor reactions.

In the Rossi reactor, the strength level of the reaction is the weakest in
this example. The Rossi reaction only affects transmutation of Ni62 and
Ni64 in the nickel powder

 There is other transmutations going on but we will keep the discussion
about nickel in the Ni/H reactors.

In the DGT reactor, the strength of the LENR reaction is on an intermediate
level. The DGT reactor can affect the nucl

RE: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Did you blow the image up?  (thanks to Alan for having all of this info
handy)

 

I could be wrong, but the tube in question still looks to be far too thick
to be blackened stainless - and there is no sign of metal at all - it looks
black all the way in. Plus there is no sign of the markings of a hammered-in
fitting which would cause metal damage. I think its thickness and color is
consistent with SiC and the stainless capsule has been removed. 

 

The lack of an end cap (or evidence that one was ever there) also makes me
think that this tube is not steel.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones,  I believe you are mistaken.  The bottom picture shows the thick
alumina (probably not high purity, but rather an AlSiMag blend) with the
slots for the resistor wires in the middle.  Inside this is only the
stainless tube - blackened by the refractory sealant they put over that
whole end in that vintage of HotCat (the ends are different on the new
design of the "Independent Test".  Then there is the outer tube about 4-5mm
thick which we are told is SiN (plausible).  I don't think there is anything
between the alumina resistor assembly and the stainless tube.

 

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:



From: Jed Rothwell

If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem
like an improvement, but it is important to track down the actual
composition of what was used in the December test.

I asked about this while correcting typos in the paper. One
of the authors told me it was "corundum, corindone in Italian."


Thanks - it is a bit of a surprise. It is true that the fluted cylinder with
the slots - which holds the resistance wire could easily be corundum which
is light-colored. Carborundum is blacker than black.

This picture on Alan's site shows the proper coloration of corundum

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_07A.png

But this picture, below it - shows a black cylinder inside the HotCat where
another separate cylinder should be, and it is not light colored and not
stainless.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_08A.png

Therefore I am still of the opinion - but without any real evidence other
than this picture, that the ceramic which holds the stainless steel capsule
is carborundum or SiC.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,  I believe you are mistaken.  The bottom picture shows the thick
alumina (probably not high purity, but rather an AlSiMag blend) with the
slots for the resistor wires in the middle.  Inside this is only the
stainless tube - blackened by the refractory sealant they put over that
whole end in that vintage of HotCat (the ends are different on the new
design of the "Independent Test".  Then there is the outer tube about 4-5mm
thick which we are told is SiN (plausible).  I don't think there is
anything between the alumina resistor assembly and the stainless tube.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> From: Jed Rothwell
>
> If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem
> like an improvement, but it is important to track down the actual
> composition of what was used in the December test.
>
> I asked about this while correcting typos in the paper. One
> of the authors told me it was "corundum, corindone in Italian."
>
>
> Thanks - it is a bit of a surprise. It is true that the fluted cylinder
> with
> the slots - which holds the resistance wire could easily be corundum which
> is light-colored. Carborundum is blacker than black.
>
> This picture on Alan's site shows the proper coloration of corundum
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_07A.png
>
> But this picture, below it - shows a black cylinder inside the HotCat where
> another separate cylinder should be, and it is not light colored and not
> stainless.
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_08A.png
>
> Therefore I am still of the opinion - but without any real evidence other
> than this picture, that the ceramic which holds the stainless steel capsule
> is carborundum or SiC.
>
> Jones
>

[Vo]:LENR clues in a 6/30/13 crop circle?

[ChemE Stewart]

For those with an open mind
http://cropcircleconnector.com/2013/Cavallo/comments.html

Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same
> phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the
> measurements are taking place)?
>

I do not know but it sounds plausible. I have heard of similar errors. With
such tiny power levels you have to measure right at the edge of the
calorimeter envelope. That is, right where the wires go in.

I do not trust such tiny power levels. They can be measured with
microcalorimeters. Rob Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters,
including the type that can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray
collision. These devices are fundamentally different in design from what
Swartz uses, and what other cold fusion researchers use.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem
like an improvement, but it is important to track down the actual
composition of what was used in the December test.

I asked about this while correcting typos in the paper. One
of the authors told me it was "corundum, corindone in Italian."


Thanks - it is a bit of a surprise. It is true that the fluted cylinder with
the slots - which holds the resistance wire could easily be corundum which
is light-colored. Carborundum is blacker than black.

This picture on Alan's site shows the proper coloration of corundum

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_07A.png

But this picture, below it - shows a black cylinder inside the HotCat where
another separate cylinder should be, and it is not light colored and not
stainless.

http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/130531_penon_08A.png

Therefore I am still of the opinion - but without any real evidence other
than this picture, that the ceramic which holds the stainless steel capsule
is carborundum or SiC.

Jones

<>

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem like an
> improvement, but it is important to track down the actual composition of
> what was used in the December test.
>

I asked about this while correcting typos in the paper. One of the authors
told me it was "corundum, *corindone* in Italian."

- Jed

[Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question

[Jack Cole]

In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control
runs made a significant difference.  Obviously, thinner wire connecting to
the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule
heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads.  I had initially
thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I
expected.  I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating.

That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims.  His active
material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance.  Could
the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena
(i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are
taking place)?

[Vo]:Considering the LENR reaction strength attribute

[Axil Axil]

There is a LENR strength component that changes the character and the types
of nuclear processes and transmutation produces that are manifest in
various LENR reactor reactions.





In the Rossi reactor, the strength level of the reaction is the weakest in
this example. The Rossi reaction only affects transmutation of Ni62 and
Ni64 in the nickel powder





There is other transmutations going on but we will keep the discussion
about nickel in the Ni/H reactors..





In the DGT reactor, the strength of the LENR reaction is on an intermediate
level. The DGT reactor can affect the nuclei of Ni58 and Ni60 as well as
Ni62 and Ni64. And the heaviest transmuted element observed is lead.





On the other side of the coin, in the LeClair reactor, the LENR reactor is
the strongest reaction observed. This LENR reaction level can affect nuclei
with both even and odd number of nucleons. This type of reaction can
produce heavy elements well into the transuranic range.





Interestingly, LeClair reports that both the chlorine stable isotopes Cl35
and Cl37 are transmuted into unstable chlorine nuclei Cl39 from LeClair as
follows:



“The radiation emitted by the reactor left nuclear tracks, burned the hole
pattern of the core into the clear PVC core enclosure, activated high
neutron absorption cross-section 39Cl (56 minute half-life) in the chlorine
of the PVC core enclosure….”





The LeClair reactor breaks the even nucleon rules where only even nucleons
are affected by the reaction.



I don’t buy the LeClair theory of how cavatation produces transmutation
from zero point energy.





Transmutation occurs because of Higgs field monopole disruption as anopole
magnetism is sufficiently strong to cause the Higgs dual superconductivity
in the nucleus to be disrupted with the formation of anapole magnetic
nuclear filaments are generated where quarks are reordered and
reconfigured.





Cavatation fits into the general whispering wave resonator polariton theory
in this way.





All these reactors produce anapole magnetic fields of varying strength that
affect the stability of nuclei in their close proximity.





There is much randomness in this transmutation process where anopole fields
can vary widely in strength. Because of this range in strength, sometimes
fusion occurs and sometimes fission occurs as the quarks are rearranged.





This process has nothing to do with high pressures or temperatures; it all
comes down simply to the production of ring currents and magnetic
disruption of Higgs superconductivity in the nucleus that this magnetic
field produces.





In the case of the cavatation bubble, the bubble acts as a micro-resonator
where polariton vortex ring currents produce a negatively charged plasmoid
whole anapole magnetic beam is pointed at the nearby solid surface.





In sonoluminescence, the dark mode cavity confinement of the polariton
plasmoid breaks down and energy from the plasmoid escapes to the far field
as ultra- violet and deep blue light as the cavatation bubble collapses.







When the dark mode is maintained in the cavatation bubble, the polariton
plasmid vortex stays together long enough to affect the atoms on the
surface of the solid material being eroded.







As posted in the thread “Proton-21 and LeClair” Proton-21 reaction is
similar to that produced by LeClair and may well be as strong resulting is
similar levels and kinds of transmutation.





In closing, please note that both LeClair and Proton-21 observe gamma
radiation up to 10 MeV. This indicates that BEC is not required for the
production of the LENR reaction. Its role is the thermalization of Gamma.





However, the intrinsic nature of the LENR reaction does leave the ash
produced by the reaction stable without producing radioactive isotopes.

RE: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

 

 

Hmm. well the earliest reference I can find on "carborundum" is this March
post

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80942.html

 

It is an important point, but corundum also is a high temperature dielectric
on which plasmons can form. It would probably suffice.

 

The importance of carborundum, as opposed to corundum, is that it has a
pronounced 10 micron reflectance. 

 

If Rossi was using corundum, then carborundum would seem like an
improvement, but it is important to track down the actual composition of
what was used in the December test.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

There was no mention in the report of "carborundum", the description was "a
different ceramic material (corundum)".  Corundum is Al2O3.  The ceramic
form is common alumina.

Teslaalset wrote:

corundum is what is noted down in the report but looking to its
characteristics they may have confused it with carborundum, which is indeed
another name for SiC.


Jones Beene het volgende:

Don't you mean "carborundum" . it is another name for SiC

 

From: 

 

 Jones, if I read the original report, the december test was performed on a
contruction that has a steel inner tube containing the Ni powder. That
cylinder was surrounded by a ceramic layer of corundum, which as a whole was
surrounded by a Silicon nitride shell.

The March test was performed on a device consisting of both a steel inner
and steel outer cylinder.

There is no mentioning of SiC in the report. 

Maybe you used different reference?

 

[Vo]:Proton-21 and LeClair

[Axil Axil]

Reference:

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf

*Experimental observation and analysis of action of light magnetic
monopoles on multilayer surfaces*


I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic anomalies
that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those reported by
LeClair in his cavitation experiments.


This “particle” could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile well
beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, this
vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces nuclear
reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature.


LeClair may have erroneously connected the water crystal that he sees with
the action of this magnetic vortex current.


If this current as large enough, this vortex currents may well be capable
of passing though solid obstructions such as reactor walls as has been
reported by LeClair and with ball lightning.


The referenced paper shows that these vortexes can travel a considerable
distance from there points of creation and are very light in mass and may
well be massless.


LeClair has presented clear experimental evidence showing the action and
mobility of these vortexes and so have STANISLAV V. ADAMENKO  and VLADIMIR
I. VYSOTSKII  in the above reference.

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[James Bowery]

In the theory of Universal Algorithmic
Intelligence(aka Universal
Artificial Intelligence), there are two aspects:

Prediction and Decision

Decision is driven by valuation.

Prediction is driven by experience.

Decision theory is routinely taught in elite business schools like Harvard
as "Decision trees".

Prediction is another matter, but one thing is certain:

Experience is limited by one's senses and one's senses require investment
of resources in order to operate.  If one's successful reproduction is not
served by particular investments -- those investments will tend to die out
in evolutionary time.  This places a value system on what one _can_
experience, as well as providing a value system within which to act on
those experiences.

Where Ockham's Razor comes in is in prediction:  The shortest program that
can represent a recording of all of one's experiences is also the program
that can best predict future experiences conditioned on various actions.

So define value however you like -- be it Sudoku puzzle-solving or
shamanistic healing of psychic wounds or any weighted combination thereof.
 The framework is the same.



On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> maybe I could add that intelligence can solve really new and unprepared
> problems, like life.
>
> I agree that it looks narrow , but sure creativity is part of operational
> intelligence.
> creativity is used for PS.
> Empathy (globally EQ) is sure also a PS ability for a social animal. Key
> value for intelligence, that is missing among some people who claim to be
> intelligent and do astronomic mistakes.
> Ability to communicate, is a key to PS in real world. Ability to call and
> offer enthusiasm is key to PS, at the individual and at the community level.
> Playing is also a key ability to develop intelligence, to develop
> competences, and discover the environment, thus opportunities.
>
>
> artistic talent, is a symptom of creativity thus intelligence,of empathy
> too, and is a game, and a way to earn your life for some...
> Useless things might be useful at the community level... dangerous games
> at the individual level might be worth at the community level...
>
> Modern psychology and game theory show how important are what we don't
> call cold intelligence, to solve hard unexpected problems, in a real
> unexpected social world.
>
> Sudoku are simple to solve... (branch and bound, just use a constraint
> programming system). they are closed game, like chess.
> Go is more open, but not so much... poker is more real, but not yet like
> life...
>
> Seeing robot cooperate to do real-world mining using a free-market logic
> of energy exchange with charity constraints, is the beginning of
> intelligence... It is an old experiment, but that is the beginning.
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/4 Mark Gibbs 
>
>> Everything you're talking about equates intelligence with problem solving
>> which is essentially a very narrow view of what intelligence involves and
>> that's fine if problem solving is the only measure of intelligence you care
>> about. The problem with this perspective is that it excludes other aspects
>> that many people consider to be part of intelligence such as artistic
>> creativity, musical ability, poetic and story-telling abilities, empathic
>> ability, and so forth.
>>
>> As "weak" as the Turing test is, it goes some of the way to evaluating
>> something that formal problem-solving tests of intelligence don't address:
>> The quality of consciousness and understanding of hard to define things
>> such as emotions and attitudes because it is based on human brains making
>> judgements about the qualities of what may or may not be a human brain.
>> Your example of testing of a super-intelligent alien would tell us nothing
>> about its broader intelligence that we couldn't discern through dialog with
>> it (what would be, in reality, a Turing test) ... indeed, what if the alien
>> was horrible at problem solving but a genius at understanding how human
>> emotions worked?
>>
>> Imagine an alien who couldn't solve a Sodoku puzzle or get a double digit
>> score playing Tetris but in a single therapy session could deduce the
>> source of your emotional problems, explain them to you in such a way that
>> you could address them, and "cure" your depression, PTSD, or whatever your
>> issues are ... would that alien be intelligent?
>>
>> [mg]
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
 one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
 formal in the sense that any theory is formal.

>>>
>>> I think we are largely in agreement here.  There are perhaps two or
>>> three different "formal" approaches that are possible -- there's the
>>> formality of a formal definition, i.e., "intelligence is A and B," where
>>> yo

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[Alain Sepeda]

maybe I could add that intelligence can solve really new and unprepared
problems, like life.

I agree that it looks narrow , but sure creativity is part of operational
intelligence.
creativity is used for PS.
Empathy (globally EQ) is sure also a PS ability for a social animal. Key
value for intelligence, that is missing among some people who claim to be
intelligent and do astronomic mistakes.
Ability to communicate, is a key to PS in real world. Ability to call and
offer enthusiasm is key to PS, at the individual and at the community level.
Playing is also a key ability to develop intelligence, to develop
competences, and discover the environment, thus opportunities.


artistic talent, is a symptom of creativity thus intelligence,of empathy
too, and is a game, and a way to earn your life for some...
Useless things might be useful at the community level... dangerous games at
the individual level might be worth at the community level...

Modern psychology and game theory show how important are what we don't call
cold intelligence, to solve hard unexpected problems, in a real unexpected
social world.

Sudoku are simple to solve... (branch and bound, just use a constraint
programming system). they are closed game, like chess.
Go is more open, but not so much... poker is more real, but not yet like
life...

Seeing robot cooperate to do real-world mining using a free-market logic of
energy exchange with charity constraints, is the beginning of
intelligence... It is an old experiment, but that is the beginning.




2013/7/4 Mark Gibbs 

> Everything you're talking about equates intelligence with problem solving
> which is essentially a very narrow view of what intelligence involves and
> that's fine if problem solving is the only measure of intelligence you care
> about. The problem with this perspective is that it excludes other aspects
> that many people consider to be part of intelligence such as artistic
> creativity, musical ability, poetic and story-telling abilities, empathic
> ability, and so forth.
>
> As "weak" as the Turing test is, it goes some of the way to evaluating
> something that formal problem-solving tests of intelligence don't address:
> The quality of consciousness and understanding of hard to define things
> such as emotions and attitudes because it is based on human brains making
> judgements about the qualities of what may or may not be a human brain.
> Your example of testing of a super-intelligent alien would tell us nothing
> about its broader intelligence that we couldn't discern through dialog with
> it (what would be, in reality, a Turing test) ... indeed, what if the alien
> was horrible at problem solving but a genius at understanding how human
> emotions worked?
>
> Imagine an alien who couldn't solve a Sodoku puzzle or get a double digit
> score playing Tetris but in a single therapy session could deduce the
> source of your emotional problems, explain them to you in such a way that
> you could address them, and "cure" your depression, PTSD, or whatever your
> issues are ... would that alien be intelligent?
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
>>> one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
>>> formal in the sense that any theory is formal.
>>>
>>
>> I think we are largely in agreement here.  There are perhaps two or three
>> different "formal" approaches that are possible -- there's the formality of
>> a formal definition, i.e., "intelligence is A and B," where you can
>> rigorously show that A and B are satisfied or not, in a mathematical sense.
>>  And then there's the formality of a procedure -- "its not clear exactly
>> what intelligence is and whether computers can have it, but we think we can
>> rigorously detect some examples of intelligence being used that could
>> potentially overlap with what computers can do now or in the future.  For
>> our experiment, we'll try to place bounds the question by doing C and D,
>> and whatever we find, it will be interesting and statistically sound."  And
>> then there's the formality of a model -- "we don't know exactly
>> what intelligence is or whether computers can have it, but we need to
>> approach the problem systematically and relate the results to other
>> experiments, so here are our general assumptions:  E and F."
>>
>> It would probably be difficult to keep these three dimensions apart in
>> actual experiments.  But it seems to me that the first kind of formality
>> could lead people into to assuming the answer implicitly in the question;
>> for example, "intelligence is the ability to solve a certain class of
>> NP-hard problems together with ."
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Bob Higgins]

There was no mention in the report of "carborundum", the description was "a
different ceramic material (corundum)".  Corundum is Al2O3.  The ceramic
form is common alumina.

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Teslaalset wrote:

>   corundum is what is noted down in the report but looking to
> its characteristics they may have confused it with carborundum, which is
> indeed another name for SiC.
>
> Op donderdag 4 juli 2013 schreef Jones Beene (jone...@pacbell.net) het
> volgende:
>
>>  Don’t you mean “carborundum” … it is another name for SiC
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>  Jones, if I read the original report, the december test was performed on
>> a contruction that has a steel inner tube containing the Ni powder. That
>> cylinder was surrounded by a ceramic layer of corundum, which as a whole
>> was surrounded by a Silicon nitride shell.
>>
>> The March test was performed on a device consisting of both a steel inner
>> and steel outer cylinder.
>>
>> There is no mentioning of SiC in the report. 
>>
>> Maybe you used different reference?
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Teslaalset]

corundum is what is noted down in the report but looking to
its characteristics they may have confused it with carborundum, which is
indeed another name for SiC.

Op donderdag 4 juli 2013 schreef Jones Beene (jone...@pacbell.net) het
volgende:

>  Don’t you mean “carborundum” … it is another name for SiC
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* 
>
> ** **
>
>  Jones, if I read the original report, the december test was performed on
> a contruction that has a steel inner tube containing the Ni powder. That
> cylinder was surrounded by a ceramic layer of corundum, which as a whole
> was surrounded by a Silicon nitride shell.
>
> The March test was performed on a device consisting of both a steel inner
> and steel outer cylinder.
>
> There is no mentioning of SiC in the report. 
>
> Maybe you used different reference?
>

RE: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

Don't you mean "carborundum" . it is another name for SiC

 

 

 

From: 

 

 Jones, if I read the original report, the december test was performed on a
contruction that has a steel inner tube containing the Ni powder. That
cylinder was surrounded by a ceramic layer of corundum, which as a whole was
surrounded by a Silicon nitride shell.

The March test was performed on a device consisting of both a steel inner
and steel outer cylinder.

There is no mentioning of SiC in the report. 

Maybe you used different reference?

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[Mark Gibbs]

Everything you're talking about equates intelligence with problem solving
which is essentially a very narrow view of what intelligence involves and
that's fine if problem solving is the only measure of intelligence you care
about. The problem with this perspective is that it excludes other aspects
that many people consider to be part of intelligence such as artistic
creativity, musical ability, poetic and story-telling abilities, empathic
ability, and so forth.

As "weak" as the Turing test is, it goes some of the way to evaluating
something that formal problem-solving tests of intelligence don't address:
The quality of consciousness and understanding of hard to define things
such as emotions and attitudes because it is based on human brains making
judgements about the qualities of what may or may not be a human brain.
Your example of testing of a super-intelligent alien would tell us nothing
about its broader intelligence that we couldn't discern through dialog with
it (what would be, in reality, a Turing test) ... indeed, what if the alien
was horrible at problem solving but a genius at understanding how human
emotions worked?

Imagine an alien who couldn't solve a Sodoku puzzle or get a double digit
score playing Tetris but in a single therapy session could deduce the
source of your emotional problems, explain them to you in such a way that
you could address them, and "cure" your depression, PTSD, or whatever your
issues are ... would that alien be intelligent?

[mg]


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
>> one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
>> formal in the sense that any theory is formal.
>>
>
> I think we are largely in agreement here.  There are perhaps two or three
> different "formal" approaches that are possible -- there's the formality of
> a formal definition, i.e., "intelligence is A and B," where you can
> rigorously show that A and B are satisfied or not, in a mathematical sense.
>  And then there's the formality of a procedure -- "its not clear exactly
> what intelligence is and whether computers can have it, but we think we can
> rigorously detect some examples of intelligence being used that could
> potentially overlap with what computers can do now or in the future.  For
> our experiment, we'll try to place bounds the question by doing C and D,
> and whatever we find, it will be interesting and statistically sound."  And
> then there's the formality of a model -- "we don't know exactly
> what intelligence is or whether computers can have it, but we need to
> approach the problem systematically and relate the results to other
> experiments, so here are our general assumptions:  E and F."
>
> It would probably be difficult to keep these three dimensions apart in
> actual experiments.  But it seems to me that the first kind of formality
> could lead people into to assuming the answer implicitly in the question;
> for example, "intelligence is the ability to solve a certain class of
> NP-hard problems together with ."
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Teslaalset]

 Jones, if I read the original report, the december test was performed on a
contruction that has a steel inner tube containing the Ni powder. That
cylinder was surrounded by a ceramic layer of corundum, which as a whole
was surrounded by a Silicon nitride shell.
The March test was performed on a device consisting of both a steel inner
and steel outer cylinder.
There is no mentioning of SiC in the report.
Maybe you used different reference?

Re: [Vo]:Celani IIST paper ... for lenr-canr...

[Jed Rothwell]

Got it. Thanks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[Alain Sepeda]

yes.
You can even manipulate them.
Illusion is often symptom of intelligence.

Errors, illusion, bias, are often caused by some heuristics used to think
fast and deeply, at the risk to make errors in rare cases.

about operational definition of intelligence, I have the engineer vision,
that a system is intelligent when it can solve problem that are not easy to
solve for stupid systems.

Nassim Nicholas taleb have a chapter also about people like Platonician
Socrates who judge that things have no value if they cannot be expressed
with words...
I agree with him, since many things we do well are not well defined, yet
well done.

The big error of my generation of engineer, around 80-90 was to focus on an
intellectual vision of intelligence (deduction, expert systems, rules...),
primate robotics, while Google generation have found that statistics,
bayesians systems, neural networks, insectoid robots, team intelligence,
works better...



2013/7/4 H Veeder 

> If machines can have artificial intelligence can they have artificial
> stupidity?
>
> harry
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
>> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
>> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
>> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
>> definition of art.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> They are necessary so you can perform experiments.  If you don't like an
 operational definition then you need to say why.

>>>
>>> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
>>> without requiring a formal definition.  Perhaps a similar question to
>>> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create
>>> art.  A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use
>>> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to
>>> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions
>>> were from from a person or from a computer.  A formal definition might seek
>>> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance
>>> whether a computer has produced it.  But art is something that is hard to
>>> define, and many people produce very poor art.
>>>
>>> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as
>>> a judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the
>>> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a
>>> computer.  This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether
>>> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer
>>> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down
>>> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[ChemE Stewart]

If we model them after humans the answer is yes


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:05 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> If machines can have artificial intelligence can they have artificial
> stupidity?
>
> harry
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
>> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
>> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
>> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
>> definition of art.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>> They are necessary so you can perform experiments.  If you don't like an
 operational definition then you need to say why.

>>>
>>> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
>>> without requiring a formal definition.  Perhaps a similar question to
>>> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create
>>> art.  A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use
>>> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to
>>> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions
>>> were from from a person or from a computer.  A formal definition might seek
>>> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance
>>> whether a computer has produced it.  But art is something that is hard to
>>> define, and many people produce very poor art.
>>>
>>> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as
>>> a judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the
>>> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a
>>> computer.  This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether
>>> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer
>>> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down
>>> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Mo wins

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

> The problem with the explanation offered in the video is that

> it could apply to a rope but ropes don't behave like that so

> the explanation is not specific to the behaviour of the chain.

> 

> Harry

 

Your comment strikes me as a little confusing. Shouldn't you have said that
the explanation appears to be: .specific to the behavior of chain, and not
rope?

 

But no matter.

 

As a matter or record, I just tried the experiment with 30 meters of coarse
1/4 inch hemp rope cuz that's all I had at my disposal, and indeed it didn't
work.  can cite a few practical reasons why I think my experiment didn't
behave in the same way as the demonstrated chain experiment - and not
necessarily because the theorized physics involved might be incorrect.

 

. Volume wise, hemp rope possesses significantly less mass than the
demonstrated chain video. A significant amount of mass & inertial mass is
necessary.



. The chain/rope also needs to be fairly flexible, meaning stiffness
will hinder the necessary physics involved.



. With less mass there is less inertial mass to contend with. Less
inertial mass to contend with would result in the rope looping (or arcing)
up and then down over the lid of the bucket far more quickly. IOW, the more
inertial mass the rope possesses the longer it would take the chain or rope
to change direction as it initially shoots up and out of the bucket before
gradually arcing down and out of the bucket.

 

. The hemp rope I used was significantly more stiffer than what
Steve Mould's chain possessed. It was brand new hemp. The stiffness, I
think, significantly hampers the physics involved.



I suspect that if someone had at their disposal about 30 - 50 feet of nice
flexible nylon rope the experiment might conform more closely to Mould's
chain experiment. I'd try it if I had 50 feet of flexible nylon rope in my
possession. But, alas, I don't. They key: the nylon rope must be flexible,
and heavy too.

 

Any takers Hey! It's another Fourth'o'July, a holiday. What else do you
got to do other than to make a quick trip to Menards or Home Depot to buy 50
feet of flexible 1/2 - 3/8 inch nylon rope! I'd also recommend thoroughly
soaking the rope in an open solution of wapatuli - to add additional mass to
the rope. (Be sure to remove any extraneous items like pineapple, oranges,
melons and any other low-hanging fruit.

 

http://www.ehow.com/how_2306303_make-wapatuli.html

 

Post your results to You Tube! (Rope demonstration optional.)

 

My two cents. and please don't blow up any of your fingers while dispatching
contraband tonight!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Mo wins

[Jones Beene]

 

From: H Veeder 

 

The problem with the explanation offered in the video is that it could apply
to a rope but ropes don't behave like that so the explanation is not
specific to the behaviour of the chain.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded

&v=6ukMId5fIi0



 

Wire could behave like the chain in the video, or maybe stiff rope. Think
"slinky" . 

 

. you probably need a certain amount of stiffness to get a spring effect in
the uncoiling. It is more than momentum. 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
> one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
> formal in the sense that any theory is formal.
>

I think we are largely in agreement here.  There are perhaps two or three
different "formal" approaches that are possible -- there's the formality of
a formal definition, i.e., "intelligence is A and B," where you can
rigorously show that A and B are satisfied or not, in a mathematical sense.
 And then there's the formality of a procedure -- "its not clear exactly
what intelligence is and whether computers can have it, but we think we can
rigorously detect some examples of intelligence being used that could
potentially overlap with what computers can do now or in the future.  For
our experiment, we'll try to place bounds the question by doing C and D,
and whatever we find, it will be interesting and statistically sound."  And
then there's the formality of a model -- "we don't know exactly
what intelligence is or whether computers can have it, but we need to
approach the problem systematically and relate the results to other
experiments, so here are our general assumptions:  E and F."

It would probably be difficult to keep these three dimensions apart in
actual experiments.  But it seems to me that the first kind of formality
could lead people into to assuming the answer implicitly in the question;
for example, "intelligence is the ability to solve a certain class of
NP-hard problems together with ."

Eric

[Vo]:A hypothetical HotCat 'whispering gallery' at the SiC tube interface.

[Jones Beene]

The HotCat appears to be constructed of a sealed tubular steel capsule
containing hydrogen (as a solid hydride)and a catalyst, nested inside a
larger ceramic tube of SiC. These two coaxial tubular units constitute the
innermost components of the device. There is a narrow gap interface between
the two walls - the exterior of the steel and the interior wall of the SiC.
This interface has a spacing that shrinks as the steel expands under
heating, but there is no diffusion welding of the two, so we can assume a
gap is maintained. 

Is that interface sufficient for a "whispering gallery" propagation mode for
10-20 micron IR radiation, which circulates to attain superradiance? 

That is the present premise. It would go a long way in explaining the
operative characteristics of this device, if true.

In this modified whispering gallery mode, as would hypothetically function
in the HotCat, we would find a cylindrical interface, instead of the
spherical or hemispherical geometry; and therefore the IR light waves will
make fewer (thousands instead of millions) circulations around the interface
before being absorbed. Full coherence may not be attained, but strong
superradiance is expected.

Whole numbers of wavelengths would be selected and reinforced in the same
way that an IR laser works (10 and 20 microns would be the two most likely
wavelengths). This causes both superradiance and surface plasmon/ polaritons
to form. This version of the whispering gallery mode is assumed to have the
same extremely low losses - to the extent that it seems superconducting
(thermally). This would not be possible without SiC, which is an excellent
reflector of 10-14 Micron radiation and absorber of everything else.

Rossi's former US patent application had an image indicating Ni
particle size of 10 microns with "nanometric" surface features. That fits in
nicely with the idea that plasmons/polaritons are forming due to
superradiance at this wavelength and then further reacting at a smaller
geometry (Casimir level). Polaritons are of Casimir geometry and are
possibly forming both inside and outside the steel capsule. Their function
is probably to react with protons in some way. Mark Gibbs and others have
noticed the similarity - possibly more than a metaphor between "muon
catalyzed fusion" and "polariton catalyzed fusion".

The role of Ni-62 in all of this is not clear. Many think Rossi's patent
application is an elaborate case of disinformation, and it could be.
However, he has no patent protection on anything other than this isotope -
the way the document is worded. Of course, there could be other documents
which have been filed, but not published.
 
It is possible that Rossi's technique of treating 10 micron nickel particles
chemically rearranges the heavier isotopes at the surface, but that is
unlikely. However, all isotopes have unique near-field charge
characteristics - and the one defining physical property of plasmons is
extremely intense electrical fields.

Thus, it can be surmised that the whispering gallery mode could facilitate
the complementary actions of either enriching the interface between the two
tubes in favorable isotopes, or in facilitating whatever is the gainful
reaction, or both. 

Personally, I do not believe that the gainful reaction can be identified as
the fusion of hydrogen to deuterium, nor as the fusion of nickel and
hydrogen to copper - but it could be either if some viable method comes
along to explain the lack of gammas. Both of these premises are falsifiable.
There are other possibilities.

All it takes to find out is proper funding.

Jones


<>

Re: [Vo]:Mo wins

[H Veeder]

The problem with the explanation offered in the video is that it could
apply to a rope but ropes don't behave like that so the explanation is not
specific to the behaviour of the chain.

Harry


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6ukMId5fIi0
>
> ... not Mo of the 3 stooges, but the big Mo of momentum.
>
> Is it any wonder why perpmo inventors can fall into self-delusion so
> easily?
>

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[H Veeder]

If machines can have artificial intelligence can they have artificial
stupidity?

harry


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
> definition of art.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> They are necessary so you can perform experiments.  If you don't like an
>>> operational definition then you need to say why.
>>>
>>
>> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
>> without requiring a formal definition.  Perhaps a similar question to
>> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create
>> art.  A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use
>> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to
>> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions
>> were from from a person or from a computer.  A formal definition might seek
>> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance
>> whether a computer has produced it.  But art is something that is hard to
>> define, and many people produce very poor art.
>>
>> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as
>> a judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the
>> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a
>> computer.  This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether
>> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer
>> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down
>> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[James Bowery]

Well since we're talking measurement and theory in the natural sciences,
one is operating on nature and one does have a model of nature which is
formal in the sense that any theory is formal.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
>> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
>> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
>> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
>> definition of art.
>>
>
> Ah, thank you for the clarification.  I didn't mean to try to escape from
> an operational definition -- just a formal one.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Mo wins

[Jones Beene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6ukMId5fIi0

... not Mo of the 3 stooges, but the big Mo of momentum.

Is it any wonder why perpmo inventors can fall into self-delusion so easily?
<>

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
> definition of art.
>

Ah, thank you for the clarification.  I didn't mean to try to escape from
an operational definition -- just a formal one.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Vortex vs (and?) LENR

[James Bowery]

I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
definition of art.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
> They are necessary so you can perform experiments.  If you don't like an
>> operational definition then you need to say why.
>>
>
> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
> without requiring a formal definition.  Perhaps a similar question to
> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create
> art.  A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use
> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to
> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions
> were from from a person or from a computer.  A formal definition might seek
> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance
> whether a computer has produced it.  But art is something that is hard to
> define, and many people produce very poor art.
>
> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as a
> judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the
> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a
> computer.  This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether
> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer
> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down
> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is.
>
> Eric
>
>