Re: [Vo]:Direct energy conversion in the Ni/H reactor.

[ChemE Stewart]

My only problem with "plasmoid" is that "oid" means "kinda sorta" and does
not really explain what a "plasmoid" is.  They are found in the solar wind,
in comet tails and the Earth's magnetic tail.

We get to go through ISON's tail in January 2014 so maybe we will get a
good dose.

The word *plasmoid* was coined in 1956 by Winston H.
Bostick(1916-1991)
to mean a "plasma-magnetic
entity":[7]

A *plasmoid* is a coherent structure of
plasma
 and magnetic fields .
Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball
lightning 
,[1]
magnetic
bubbles in the magnetosphere ,
[2]  and objects in
cometary tails,[3]  in
the solar wind,[4]
[5]
in
the solar atmosphere,[6]
 and
in the heliospheric current
sheet.
Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include field-reversed
configurations
,spheromaks , and in dense plasma
focuses .

The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a
torus.
We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a
word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed
as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It might be possible to gain research information on and harvest pulsed
> electrical power from the energy contained in polariton plasmoids formed in
> solitons using 0D transistors inside the Ni/H reactor. Remember that the
> cavitation bubble is similar to the soliton in its mechanisms and energy
> content.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.6723.pdf
>
>
>
> *Water Electrolysis and Energy Harvesting with 0D Ion-Sensitive
> Field-Effect Transistors*
>

RE: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION

[Jones Beene]

LOL. I smell an Ig Nobel Prize in the making…

 

http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/

 

Whew… the fumes are overwhelming. Pass me one of Dr Bodnar’s protective face 
masks please… and Do NOT go in there …

 

 

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

I'm not so sure.  I think the main discovery was set out sometime back in my 
paper, here [1], with a little help from the Internet [2].

 

Eric

 

[1] 
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/399/scimakelatex.51556.Eric+Walker.html

[2] http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ (Check it out -- it's pretty cool what 
this site can produce; I didn't find anything for phsyics, specifically.)

 

James Bowery wrote:

 

I think the pivotal moment for Defkalion and Rossi came when I published here, 
at vortex-l, for the first time my theory of resonant  BEC phonon dark Ruberg 
matter's interaction with the galactic plane's cosmic-ray shielding orientation.

 

Thank you, thank you -- I don't deserve all the credit for this, of course.

 

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> A high frequency spectrum analyzer is needed to evaluate the level and
> frequency extent of the possible RF interference. I cannot imagine trying
> to make 24b ADC measurements for accurate thermocouple readings in the
> presence of these pulses.
>

And THAT is why you should always bring a $7 red liquid general purpose
thermometer. See:

http://www.omega.com/pptst/GT-736000_THERMOMETERS.html

Fancy high tech equipment is wonderful. I love it! I had a great time at U.
Missouri looking at all those instruments. HOWEVER, you must do a reality
check. Measure the temperature with a thermometer. Measure the flow rate
with a stopwatch, a bucket, and a weight scale. (In this case you have to
condense the steam.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Bob Higgins]

Somewhere in a previous post I saw DGT's spark pulse numbers of 24 kV at 22
mA peak with a rep rate in the kHz range. This is over 500W of pulse power.
The wires leading to the spark plugs are of significant size and will make
good radiators. Normal CDI type of spark pulsers have nanosecond rise
times. The result is that the Hyperion is likely an RF noise screamer. Even
if there was no external field associated with the LENR per se, the noise
from this pulse generator could easily desense phones and other surrounding
equipment. It is like running a tesla coil in the same room where you are
trying to make sensitive measurements. The RF gets picked up by in the
instruments, goes all over the the internal PC boards, and gets rectified
(like a crystal radio) in every transistor junction on the board. High gain
circuits will go completely wacky with the little internal offsets created
this way. Until you see how well this noise is suppressed in the
instruments, you can't believe any of the measurements. DGT's shielding has
surely been intended to suppress this interference, but it is a difficult
task to provide the broadband shielding required. A high frequency spectrum
analyzer is needed to evaluate the level and frequency extent of the
possible RF interference. I cannot imagine trying to make 24b ADC
measurements for accurate thermocouple readings in the presence of these
pulses.

Bob

Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION

[Eric Walker]

I'm not so sure.  I think the main discovery was set out sometime back in
my paper, here [1], with a little help from the Internet [2].

Eric


[1]
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/399/scimakelatex.51556.Eric+Walker.html
[2] http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ (Check it out -- it's pretty cool
what this site can produce; I didn't find anything for phsyics,
specifically.)


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:41 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

>
>  I think the pivotal moment for Defkalion and Rossi came when I published
> here, at vortex-l, for the first time my theory of resonant  BEC phonon
> dark Ruberg matter's interaction with the galactic plane's cosmic-ray
> shielding orientation.
>
> Thank you, thank you -- I don't deserve *all* the credit for this, of
> course.
>

[Vo]:Direct energy conversion in the Ni/H reactor.

[Axil Axil]

It might be possible to gain research information on and harvest pulsed
electrical power from the energy contained in polariton plasmoids formed in
solitons using 0D transistors inside the Ni/H reactor. Remember that the
cavitation bubble is similar to the soliton in its mechanisms and energy
content.



http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.6723.pdf



*Water Electrolysis and Energy Harvesting with 0D Ion-Sensitive
Field-Effect Transistors*

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

For any polariton based soliton, it exists for some 10s of picoseconds
only. It seems to me that this is a rapidly changing magnetic field.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> People keep saying "EMF" in the context of talking about a magnetic field.
>  Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a
> magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I
>> have listened to your range of theories.
>>
>> You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year
>> ago.  I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M
>> theory while we are throwing out suggestions
>>
>> But I will read up on nanoplasmonics.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>> As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory
>>> making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I
>>> also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the
>>> pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the
>>> enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science  which can start
>>> your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
>>> their SCADA function.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field
>>> resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter
>>> was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps the effect
>>> gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic
>>> field.  Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what
>>> happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second
>>> hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little
>>> understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data
>>> to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic
>>> fields are generated.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret..
>>> 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
>>> want to believe it, that is.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
>>> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6
>>> T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I
>>> would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a
>>> 1.6 T magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
>>> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
>>> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
>>> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
>>> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
>>> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
>>> production.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
>>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
>>> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
>>> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
>>> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
>>> is not believed?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced
>>> by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
>>> nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
>>> magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[James Bowery]

People keep saying "EMF" in the context of talking about a magnetic field.
 Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a
magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I
> have listened to your range of theories.
>
> You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year
> ago.  I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M
> theory while we are throwing out suggestions
>
> But I will read up on nanoplasmonics.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stewart
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory
>> making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I
>> also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the
>> pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the
>> enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science  which can start
>> your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
>> their SCADA function.
>>
>>
>> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted
>> from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was
>> influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps the effect gives
>> off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field.
>>  Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened.
>> We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and
>> hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what
>> they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an
>> observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are
>> generated.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret..
>> 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
>> want to believe it, that is.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
>> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
>> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
>> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
>> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
>> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
>> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
>> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
>> me.
>>
>> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
>> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
>> production.
>>
>>
>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
>> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
>> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
>> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
>> is not believed?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by
>> the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
>> nucleus.
>>
>>
>>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
>> magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[ChemE Stewart]

If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I have
listened to your range of theories.

You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year
ago.  I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M
theory while we are throwing out suggestions

But I will read up on nanoplasmonics.

Thanks,

Stewart




On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:

> As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory
> making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I
> also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the
> pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the
> enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science  which can start
> your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
> their SCADA function.
>
>
> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted
> from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was
> influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps the effect gives
> off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field.
>  Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened.
> We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and
> hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what
> they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an
> observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are
> generated.
>
> Ed
>
>
> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6
> tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
> want to believe it, that is.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
> me.
>
> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
> production.
>
>
> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
> is not believed?
>
> Ed
>
> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by
> the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
> nucleus.
>
>
>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
> magnetic radiation that comes out of the solit
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Edmund Storms]

Unless we understand the meaning of the words being used, nothing will  
make sense. To make electric power, a voltage has to be created  
between two locations so that a current can be made to flow.  The  
amount of power created is equal to the current times the voltage.  
Many ways exist to create a voltage. For example, a thermocouple  
creates a voltage but very little power. For the claim to be  
important, Rossi needs to show that the configuration actually creates  
a voltage AND a current.  This can be done using a thermoelectric  
convertor, which are easily available. However, the efficiency is too  
low for this method to be useful under most circumstances. Until the  
actual data is provided, the claim means only that Rossi is attempting  
to cause direct conversion, which is a well known process. This claim  
does not show anything about the theory of CF.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery

Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics  
that he is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot  
Cycle. The Italian inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor  
core. EMF or Electromotive Force, according to Faraday’s Law,  
represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made  
available by the generating mechanism and is not a ‘force’. Rossi  
said:


“Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at  
high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise  
measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert,  
but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a  
high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at  
this point, also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the  
Carnot Cycle.”


Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his  
electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating.  
Zavela further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi  
if his research has found the answers yet.


Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi:

Q:  If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it  
detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was  
looking for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate  
accident, as often happens in Science).


A: Matter of Serendipity

Q:  What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss?  
That makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something  
else going on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b)  
whether there is enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels  
of output power.


A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood  
well the “strange power”


Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other  
elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there  
is some kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some  
subatomic effect has set up a circular electron flow that would  
produce an EMF.


A:  Confidential

For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working  
cold fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations  
and quite a few of creative inventions. People get easily excited.  
However, it is still good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team  
and provide us significant information with evidence.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems  
and their SCADA function.


Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field  
resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the  
meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps  
the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a  
strong magnetic field.  Before you provide an explanation, you need  
to know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information.  
The information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who  
have shown very little understanding of what they have observed in  
the past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that  
conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated.


Ed



The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to  
interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that,  
unless you just don't want to believe it, that is.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with  
1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual  
data.  I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be  
surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field.  The devil is in the  
details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel  
theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain t

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory
making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I
also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the
pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the
enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science  which can start
your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
> their SCADA function.
>
>
> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted
> from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was
> influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps the effect gives
> off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field.
>  Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened.
> We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and
> hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what
> they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an
> observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are
> generated.
>
> Ed
>
>
> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6
> tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
> want to believe it, that is.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
>> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
>> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
>> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
>> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
>> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
>> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
>> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
>> me.
>>
>> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
>> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
>>> production.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
>>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
>>> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
>>> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
>>> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
>>> is not believed?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced
>>> by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
>>> nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
>>> magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
>>>
>>>
>>>  But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in
>>> LENR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Axil Axil  wrote:

 *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>
> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to
> produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before
> the sensors blew out.
>
> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper
> text book.
>

 Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important
 clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not
 believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside
 this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges.

 There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
 evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims
 readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without
 prejudice, waiting for better evidence.

 A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
 Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
 physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong.
 That was a dangerous attitude.

 - Jed


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

http://ecatreport.com/andrearossi/on-rossis-fascinating-emf-discovery


Andrea Rossi recently stated on his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics that he
is currently taking the road to circumventing the Carnot Cycle. The Italian
inventor posted that direct EMF from the reactor core. EMF or Electromotive
Force, according to Faraday’s Law, represents energy per unit charge
(voltage) which has been made available by the generating mechanism and is
not a ‘force’. Rossi said:

“Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready
for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point, also of
high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle.”

Daniel G. Zavela, another poster on JONP website, commented that his
electrical engineer friend found Rossi’s EMF discovery fascinating. Zavela
further stated that his friend has a few questions for Rossi if his
research has found the answers yet.

Here are the three questions and the corresponding answers from Rossi:

Q:  If this is not a temperature-dependent phenomenon, why wasn’t it
detected earlier? (it is quite unexpected, so perhaps no one was looking
for it, and the recent discovery was merely a fortunate accident, as often
happens in Science).

A: Matter of Serendipity

Q:  What is the strength of the EMF? Milligauss? Dozens of Gauss? That
makes a difference in (a) whether it might be due to something else going
on in the lab, or from the reactor core itself, and (b) whether there is
enough energy in the EMF to provide useful levels of output power.

A: I prefer not to give precise data until we have not understood well the
“strange power”

Q. What is the internal physical arrangement of the nickel and other
elements in the eCat? I ask this, because I speculate that if there is some
kind of circular layout, it is conceivable that some subatomic effect has
set up a circular electron flow that would produce an EMF.

A:  Confidential

For more than a year now since Rossi announced that he has a working cold
fusion/LENR based device, there have been several speculations and quite a
few of creative inventions. People get easily excited. However, it is still
good to get some confirmation from Rossi’s team and provide us significant
information with evidence.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
> their SCADA function.
>
>
> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field resulted
> from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter was
> influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps the effect gives
> off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic field.
>  Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what happened.
> We do not yet have this information. The information is second hand and
> hearsay provided by people who have shown very little understanding of what
> they have observed in the past. We NEED better data to believe an
> observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic fields are
> generated.
>
> Ed
>
>
> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6
> tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
> want to believe it, that is.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
>> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
>> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
>> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
>> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
>> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
>> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
>> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
>> me.
>>
>> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
>> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
>>> production.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
>>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
>>> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
>>> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explan

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Edmund Storms]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems  
and their SCADA function.


Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field  
resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the  
meter was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field.  Perhaps  
the effect gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a  
strong magnetic field.  Before you provide an explanation, you need to  
know EXACTLY what happened. We do not yet have this information. The  
information is second hand and hearsay provided by people who have  
shown very little understanding of what they have observed in the  
past. We NEED better data to believe an observation that conflicts  
with the basic ways magnetic fields are generated.


Ed


The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to  
interpret.. 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that,  
unless you just don't want to believe it, that is.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with  
1.6 T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual  
data.  I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be  
surprised to see a 1.6 T magnetic field.  The devil is in the  
details. Using a collection of ambiguous data to support a novel  
theory is not progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in  
the field will believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly  
demonstrated. You are proving them right.


Ed

On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two  
like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the  
real thing to me.


If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR,  
the also research Rossi's EMF claims.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton  
production.


It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is  
not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error.  
What will you say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to  
believe an amazing claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim  
using an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for  
being real. Can you see why your claim is not believed?


Ed

What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF  
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the  
disintegration of the nucleus.


Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the  
anapole magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.


But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent  
in LENR.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:

Axil Axil  wrote:

I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with  
conventional, textbook physics and engineering.


In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to  
produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2  
before the sensors blew out.


Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the  
proper text book.


Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an  
important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that  
people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about  
temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it  
again if new evidence emerges.


There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher.  
An evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some  
claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put  
aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence.


A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about  
others. Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in  
1989. Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they  
got that one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[ChemE Stewart]

Axil,

To boil it down, if you say it is a singularity emitting emf radiation
over a broad spectrum I agree with that synopsis

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:

> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and
> their SCADA function.
>
> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6
> tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
> want to believe it, that is.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
> me.
>
> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
> production.
>
>
> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
> is not believed?
>
> Ed
>
> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by
> the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
> nucleus.
>
>
>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
> magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
>
>
>  But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in
> LENR.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
> conventional, textbook physics and e*
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and their
SCADA function.

The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. 1.6
tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't
want to believe it, that is.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 T.
> Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.  I would
> not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a 1.6 T
> magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a collection of
> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional
> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter
> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
> systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
> me.
>
> If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
> also research Rossi's EMF claims.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>  The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
>> production.
>>
>>
>> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
>> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
>> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
>> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
>> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
>> is not believed?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by
>> the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
>> nucleus.
>>
>>
>>  Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
>> magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
>>
>>
>>  But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in
>> LENR.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
 conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *

 In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
 solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
 sensors blew out.

 Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper
 text book.

>>>
>>> Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important
>>> clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not
>>> believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside
>>> this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges.
>>>
>>> There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
>>> evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims
>>> readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without
>>> prejudice, waiting for better evidence.
>>>
>>> A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
>>> Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
>>> physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong.
>>> That was a dangerous attitude.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Edmund Storms]

But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6  
T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data.   
I would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to  
see a 1.6 T magnetic field.  The devil is in the details. Using a  
collection of ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not  
progress. Conventional scientists complain that we in the field will  
believe anything, no matter how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You  
are proving them right.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two  
like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the  
real thing to me.


If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR,  
the also research Rossi's EMF claims.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton  
production.


It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is  
not real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What  
will you say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to  
believe an amazing claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using  
an amazing explanation with neither having any evidence for being  
real. Can you see why your claim is not believed?


Ed

What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF  
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the  
disintegration of the nucleus.


Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole  
magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.


But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent  
in LENR.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:

Axil Axil  wrote:

I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with  
conventional, textbook physics and engineering.


In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to  
produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2  
before the sensors blew out.


Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper  
text book.


Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an  
important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that  
people who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about  
temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it  
again if new evidence emerges.


There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An  
evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some  
claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put  
aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence.


A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.  
Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989.  
Many physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that  
one wrong. That was a dangerous attitude.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, July 26, 2013 - Advances in Desalination Technology is coming

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Sat, 27 Jul 2013
08:55:25 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Since 2/3 of the energy in coal used in electric power plants ends up as low
grade heat, it should be possible to use some of that in a desalination plant
adjacent to existing power plants.

>From: ChemE Stewart
>
>...
>
> 
>
>> Really needs a large source of green energy to power
>
> 
>
>Sans a more environmentally friendly "green energy" source, I wonder if
>anyone has done the math to determine whether constructing and dedicating a
>significant portion of the energy resources generated by a nearby nuclear
>plant would make the conversion process more economical through large scale
>volume.
>
> 
>
>Again, I wonder what the cost per gallon'o'water is likely to be. With
>demand for fresh water constantly increasing... at some point water
>extracted via desalinization is likely to become a more palpable economical
>& political choice for large portions of the planet's population centers.
>
> 
>
>I would imagine the number crunchers have already have done the math, and
>that is why they are building the plants regardless of what energy source is
>used. It's inevitable that the price of fresh water will go up. It's
>becoming the most valuable commodity on the planet. They would be fools not
>to build desalinization plants. As always, there's money to be made.
>
> 
>
>Regards,
>
>Steven Vincent Johnson
>
>svjart.OrionWorks.com
>
>www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like
systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to
me.

If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the
also research Rossi's EMF claims.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
> production.
>
>
> It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
> real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will you
> say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an amazing
> claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing explanation
> with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you see why your claim
> is not believed?
>
> Ed
>
> What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF produced by
> the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration of the
> nucleus.
>
>
> Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
> magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
>
>
> But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
>>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>>>
>>> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
>>> solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
>>> sensors blew out.
>>>
>>> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
>>> book.
>>>
>>
>> Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important
>> clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not
>> believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside
>> this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges.
>>
>> There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
>> evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims
>> readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without
>> prejudice, waiting for better evidence.
>>
>> A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
>> Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
>> physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong.
>> That was a dangerous attitude.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Edmund Storms]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton  
production.


It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not  
real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will  
you say then? How much evidence, Axil,  do you require to believe an  
amazing claim?  You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing  
explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you  
see why your claim is not believed?


Ed

What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF  
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the  
disintegration of the nucleus.


Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole  
magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.


But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in  
LENR.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  
 wrote:

Axil Axil  wrote:

I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with  
conventional, textbook physics and engineering.


In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to  
produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2  
before the sensors blew out.


Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper  
text book.


Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an  
important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people  
who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about  
temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it  
again if new evidence emerges.


There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An  
evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some  
claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put  
aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence.


A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.  
Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many  
physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one  
wrong. That was a dangerous attitude.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
production. What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the disintegration
of the nucleus.



Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.



But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in LENR.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>>
>> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
>> solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
>> sensors blew out.
>>
>> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
>> book.
>>
>
> Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important
> clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not
> believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside
> this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges.
>
> There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
> evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims
> readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without
> prejudice, waiting for better evidence.
>
> A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
> Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
> physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong.
> That was a dangerous attitude.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

*I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>
> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
> solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
> sensors blew out.
>
> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
> book.
>

Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an important
clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people who do not
believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about temporarily setting aside
this claim. You can always look at it again if new evidence emerges.

There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some claims
readily, others with reservations, and still others you put aside, without
prejudice, waiting for better evidence.

A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one wrong.
That was a dangerous attitude.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> A recent breakthrough
>
> resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear,
>
> it now stands for nanoplasmonics.

It stands for 'nuclei'.

http://defkalion-energy.com/technology/

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

In Kim's ICCF 18 paper. there are two references to nanoplasmonic papers
[16,17]. Also, DGT has be famisly quoted as stating that LENR should stand
for nanoplasmonics:

see http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf

However, readers who are aware of nanoplasmonics—a

new area of science dealing with the interaction of photons

with matter including nuclei or sub-nuclear particles—will

be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion Green

Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they

see happening in DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion

product. Instead of using the term low-energy nuclear reactions

(LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat

energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough

resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear,

it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I expect that this simpler

interpretation of the phenomena could help with the public

image of this field and its products. Could it also build

alliances with other academic fields


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
> difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
> okay.
>
> Ignoring the results until you assimilate enough applicable knowledge to
> understand it.  But how long does it take for the observer to understand
> what needs to be done to get up to the proper speed.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>>
>> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
>> solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
>> sensors blew out.
>>
>> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
>> book.
>>
>> If you want to understand LENR, you need to understand nanoplasmonics.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework,
 the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some
 screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the
 experimental data.

>>> I assume this is about the intense magnetic field.
>>>
>>> I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with
>>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.% of the time that
>>> means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside
>>> observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a
>>> feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher
>>> should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then
>>> announce it again with more details and better proof.
>>>
>>> There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
>>> difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
>>> okay.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Alain Sepeda]

An idea came to me ?
If patent were deposited early 2012, when will they be publicated, even if
pending ?

if one company have good patent which get public, what should they do ?
what could they do ?
what should they be afraid of? what should they do so ?

who claimed to have filed patents in that period?
Who was ready for test at that period?

;-)

is that hypothesis less credible than a negative one?

there is a moment where pessimism is fear. prudence OK,murphy laws OK,  but
tragedy is not my main hypothesis.



2013/8/13 James Bowery 

> OK, so in addition to the conflation of "the [criminally conspiratorial US
> --JAB] patent
> On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/or
> product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts.
>  Everything would follow from that.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
okay.

Ignoring the results until you assimilate enough applicable knowledge to
understand it.  But how long does it take for the observer to understand
what needs to be done to get up to the proper speed.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *
>
> In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
> solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
> sensors blew out.
>
> Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
> book.
>
> If you want to understand LENR, you need to understand nanoplasmonics.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework,
>>> the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some
>>> screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the
>>> experimental data.
>>>
>> I assume this is about the intense magnetic field.
>>
>> I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with
>> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.% of the time that
>> means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside
>> observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a
>> feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher
>> should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then
>> announce it again with more details and better proof.
>>
>> There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
>> difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
>> okay.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

*I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
conventional, textbook physics and engineering. *

In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to produce
solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2 before the
sensors blew out.

Not finding this behavior  is a result of not looking in the proper text
book.

If you want to understand LENR, you need to understand nanoplasmonics.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework,
>> the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some
>> screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the
>> experimental data.
>>
> I assume this is about the intense magnetic field.
>
> I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with
> conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.% of the time that
> means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside
> observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a
> feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher
> should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then
> announce it again with more details and better proof.
>
> There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
> difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
> okay.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

Super oscillations are produced when fano resonance converts infrared EMF
into a soliton EMF singularity within the hot spot that develops between
the nanowires of the Nickel micro particles.

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM,  wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Is it worth considering the possibility that superoscillations or "rogue
> waves" are occurring?
>
> It's possible to generate extremely large transient signal peaks and
> steep slopes, using band-limited signals - even when all of the components
> are low-frequency, low-amplitude sinusoids.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superoscillation)
>
> BTW, the Energetics' "SuperWave" stimulus looks to me like it's
> guaranteed to produce such excursions.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
> > There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic
> > anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck.
> > [...]
> > I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the
> > announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information
> > confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was
> > measured as "peak." This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as
> > a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain.
> > [...]
> > It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed
> > DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is
> > disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their
> > phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the
> > reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a
> > gaussmeter.
> >
> > Using a peak measurement would be highly vulnerable to this. A DC or
> > RMS AC display would be less vulnerable, but major RF noise could
> > scramble almost any electronic device unless it is specially designed
> > to be immune.
> >
> > For "pulsed DC," and assuming Defkalion is using the same stimulation
> > still -- and apparently the Tesla figures were from last year or even
> > before -- see slide 15,
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos
> > [...]
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

> If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework,
> the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some
> screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the
> experimental data.
>
I assume this is about the intense magnetic field.

I think this is more more a case where the result does not fit in with
conventional, textbook physics and engineering. 99.% of the time that
means the result is some screw-up or another. It is best for an outside
observer to ignore such results for the time being. If the researcher has a
feeling it might be a genuine anomaly and not a mistake, the researcher
should do it again several times, using different instrument types. Then
announce it again with more details and better proof.

There is no harm in ignoring results temporarily. There is a huge
difference between ignoring a result and attacking it. Benign neglect is
okay.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[pagnucco]

Daniel,

Is it worth considering the possibility that superoscillations or "rogue
waves" are occurring?

It's possible to generate extremely large transient signal peaks and
steep slopes, using band-limited signals - even when all of the components
are low-frequency, low-amplitude sinusoids.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superoscillation)

BTW, the Energetics' "SuperWave" stimulus looks to me like it's
guaranteed to produce such excursions.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Daniel Rocha wrote:
> There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic
> anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck.
> [...]
> I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the
> announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information
> confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was
> measured as "peak." This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as
> a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain.
> [...]
> It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed
> DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is
> disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their
> phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the
> reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a
> gaussmeter.
>
> Using a peak measurement would be highly vulnerable to this. A DC or
> RMS AC display would be less vulnerable, but major RF noise could
> scramble almost any electronic device unless it is specially designed
> to be immune.
>
> For "pulsed DC," and assuming Defkalion is using the same stimulation
> still -- and apparently the Tesla figures were from last year or even
> before -- see slide 15,
> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos
> [...]

Re: [Vo]:Norman D. Cook @ ICCF18: Isotope shifts in LENR

[Teslaalset]

Thanks Axil, Edmund. That helps understanding. I urgently need to study
some basic quantum mechanics.



>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Axil Axil]

*Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment
>show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such
>an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances.
>Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to
>discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume
>the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory.
>Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the
>observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this
>exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no
>value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss.*

I* agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into
theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in
advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some
mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but
the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed
himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my
theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.)*


If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework, the
tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some screw-up
or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the experimental data.


The application of Nanoplasmonic theory to the Ni/H reactor is well
documented in a paper that I authored and distributed to selected LENR
experts many months ago. This Paper was a coherent compilation of the many
posts that I have written on vortex. These posts usually receive no
feedback or comment.

To account for this lack of response, my assumption is that Nanoplasmonic
science is way over the heads of most laymen or even non-electrochemists.
However to my pleasant surprise, ABD was one of the reviewers and commented
on it extensively.

However unlike DGT, ABD has not taken these concepts to heart and embraced
Nanoplasmonics as the causal root of the LENR process.


I have repeatedly begged the Vortex community to learn and understand
Nanoplasmonics, a electrochemical based science that has developed since
1974 when Martin Fleischmann founded it. This new science has made steady
progress over the following decades and now produces and excess of 2000
papers a year as its intellectual product.


The EMF behavior of the Ni/H reactor is exactly predicted by Nanoplasmonic
technology.  The central physical manifestation of Nanoplasmonics is the
“hot spot”. This is directly related to the nuclear active environment that
is oftentimes discussed as a central LENR mechanism.

You would think that the revelation by both Rossi and DGT of EMF anomalies
in the Ni/H reactor might engender increased interest in Nanoplasmonics as
a successful predictor of Ni/H behavior. But it has not. This leaded me to
the conclusion that the problem with LENR is deeply rooted in the people
who support it.

If you take offence at that conclusion, learn some Nanoplasmonics and prove
me wrong.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> One more comment from Abd. You are welcome to go there and comment!:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/593
>
> 
>
> There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic
> anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck.
>
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85652.html
>
> There continues to be a high level of assumption involved in
> comments, with little awareness of how weak the assumptions are.
>
> Dr. Storms commented:
>
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85663.html
>
> >Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been
> >made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed
> >high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the
> >circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was
> >misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is
> >pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this
> >obvious error to be explained and corrected.
>
> and later, to Daniel Rocha:
>
> >Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment
> >since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything?
>
> Daniel Rocha does appear to have inside information, but is
> restricted in what he can reveal. Unfortunately, he may also be
> adding his own intepretations, confusing everything.
>
> >You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The
> >impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If
> >you know this is not true, why would you not say so?
>
> I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the
> announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information
> confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was
> measured as "peak." This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as
> a

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Edmund Storms]

So that we are clear, James, research is a term used to describe the  
investigation of anything. The term research can be used to develop an  
application or to seek commercial use, all of which can be described  
as requiring research. The term "basic research" is generally used to  
describe your definition.


Yes, a technique is potentially patentable unless the technique claims  
to do something the patent office thinks is impossible, which is the  
case with LENR. Consequently, the rest of the legal language does not  
apply as long as the claim is considered to be impossible.  Let's  
assume a patent is obtained for a process that is considered by most  
people to be impossible. How is that patent enforced?  I suggest  a  
patent for LENR cannot be defended until the process has been proven  
to occur and be accepted by the major scientists, i.e. those who might  
be called on to testify in court.


As to your second point, suppose a patent is obtained within the  
jurisdiction of a reasonable patent office, the information is now  
available to anyone who wants to make the effect work better. Now I,  
or other people, can discover how the process actually works, make a  
change not anticipated in the original patent, and market a better  
commercial device. This very likely possibility has to keep Rossi up  
at night.


Yes, once the effect can be easy to reproduce, all the big companies  
will be working hard while the rest of us are ignored. Not a pleasant  
thought.


Ed



On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:47 PM, James Bowery wrote:

OK, so in addition to the conflation of "the [criminally  
conspiratorial US --JAB] patent office" with any reasonable patent  
office, we have the conflation of research with development.   
Clearly, in the context of patent funding, discussion of research  
funding must be separated from discussion of development funding.   
The purpose of research is to discover laws of nature and laws of  
nature are not patentable by any patent office.  The purpose of  
development is to create useful techniques -- and techniques are  
potentially patentable by any patent office.  To any reasonable  
patent office these techniques have only to be useful and non- 
obvious; they do not have to be "scientific" except in the broad  
sense that reproducibility (the operational definition of effective  
"disclosure" in reasonable patent processes) is the sine qua non of  
"scientific" phenomena.


On the development funding side, Rossi and or Defkalion, assuming  
they have actually produced heat on the order they claim, could find  
any reasonable patent office, write a patent disclosure and obtain,  
within the jurisdiction of the reasonable patent office, protection  
for their investors.  Given the high value of the technology, even a  
small jurisdiction would provide ample rewards for their investors  
and that is true even if the disclosure then allowed major players  
to, on the strength of the signal to noise ratio of the phenomenon,  
discover the (unpatentable) underlying laws of nature that, then,  
(possibly by being held as a trade secret for a time) recommended  
techniques to get around the original "unscientific" patent.


On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/ 
or product which would motivate the major players to get off their  
butts.  Everything would follow from that.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not  
like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted.  
In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other  
technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a  
patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear  
energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such  
patent?  All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without  
any proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does  
not even give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later  
when the technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a  
patent that actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi  
might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it  
would block use of that method, but nothing else.


But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect  
will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and  
the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get  
such a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and  
protect.  Do you agree?  The electrolytic method can be reproduced  
by a person skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must  
this replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this  
claim now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate  
nuclear energy?


So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get  
money to support research? How

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[James Bowery]

OK, so in addition to the conflation of "the [criminally conspiratorial US
--JAB] patent office" with *any reasonable patent office*, we have the
conflation of research with development.  Clearly, in the context of patent
funding, discussion of research funding must be separated from discussion
of development funding.  The purpose of research is to discover laws of
nature and laws of nature are not patentable by *any* patent office*.*  The
purpose of development is to create useful techniques -- and techniques *are
potentially* patentable by *any* patent office.  To *any reasonable patent
office* these techniques have *only* to be useful and non-obvious; they do *
not* have to be "scientific" except in the broad sense that reproducibility
(the operational definition of effective "disclosure" in *reasonable* patent
processes) is the sine qua non of "scientific" phenomena.

On the development funding side, Rossi and or Defkalion, assuming they have
actually produced heat on the order they claim, could find *any reasonable
patent office*, write a patent disclosure and obtain, within the
jurisdiction of the reasonable patent office, protection for their
investors.  Given the high value of the technology, even a small
jurisdiction would provide ample rewards for their investors and that is
true even if the disclosure then allowed major players to, on the strength
of the signal to noise ratio of the phenomenon, discover the (unpatentable)
underlying laws of nature that, then, (possibly by being held as a trade
secret for a time) recommended techniques to get around the original
"unscientific" patent.

On the research side, the critical event would be the disclosure and/or
product which would motivate the major players to get off their butts.
 Everything would follow from that.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not like
> any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted. In
> contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other technologies. This
> means that the patent office will not grant a patent based on the basic
> mechanism or for claims based on nuclear energy being produced by such a
> mechanism. Do you know of any such patent?  All the granted patents seem to
> apply to a method without any proof that the method actually works. In
> contrast, Rossi does not even give the method. This opens the patent to
> challenge later when the technology starts making money for someone else.
> Second, a patent that actually describes a working device, such as what
> Rossi might attempt to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it
> would block use of that method, but nothing else.
>
> But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect will be
> blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and the
> understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such a patent
> now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect.  Do you agree?
>  The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person skilled in the art,
> but not every time. How often must this replication be accomplished for
> this rule to apply? Could this claim now be patented once a recipe is
> described that can replicate nuclear energy?
>
> So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get money
> to support research? How does your propose approach help us? Rossi will do
> what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication:
>  First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has
> laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is
> blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the
> world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining
> backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected
> even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US
> patent office's criminal conspiracy.
>
> Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and
> the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is
> identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development.
>
> Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process
> reproducibly by those "skilled in the art".  The argument that someone
> somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure
> is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive,
> there has been no generally accepted such replication.  Therefore, the
> first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents
> must negotiate with the prior art.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger
>> problem.  Sin

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Edmund Storms]

Let me see if I can be clearer. I believe the LENR situation is not  
like any other. First of all, the basic explanation is not accepted.  
In contrast, the basic explanation is accepted about other  
technologies. This means that the patent office will not grant a  
patent based on the basic mechanism or for claims based on nuclear  
energy being produced by such a mechanism. Do you know of any such  
patent?  All the granted patents seem to apply to a method without any  
proof that the method actually works. In contrast, Rossi does not even  
give the method. This opens the patent to challenge later when the  
technology starts making money for someone else. Second, a patent that  
actually describes a working device, such as what Rossi might attempt  
to get, would apply only to the method used. Yes, it would block use  
of that method, but nothing else.


But, you seem to say that any method shown to reproduce the effect  
will be blocking regardless of whether this method is understood and  
the understanding is shown to apply. Presumably, Rossi could get such  
a patent now if he trusted the system to actually grant and protect.   
Do you agree?  The electrolytic method can be reproduced by a person  
skilled in the art, but not every time. How often must this  
replication be accomplished for this rule to apply? Could this claim  
now be patented once a recipe is described that can replicate nuclear  
energy?


So, the problem is what do the rest of us do who are trying to get  
money to support research? How does your propose approach help us?  
Rossi will do what Rossi wants to do. The rest of us need advice.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:

We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication:   
First, I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic  
has laid to rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal  
conspiracy is blocking, even though its influence may pervade the  
much if not most of the world, and that we may, therefore and  
henceforth focus solely on obtaining backing for development of  
protected intellectual property -- protected even if in only one  
jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US patent office's  
criminal conspiracy.


Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found  
and the patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing  
investors is identical to that facing any investor in any technology  
development.


Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process  
reproducibly by those "skilled in the art".  The argument that  
someone somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such  
a disclosure is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given  
the enormous motive, there has been no generally accepted such  
replication.  Therefore, the first such disclosure will be blocking  
and subsequent derivative patents must negotiate with the prior art.




On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger  
problem.  Since patent protection for the basic process is not  
possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection.  
This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a  
great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with  
no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any  
return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive  
is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This  
means the seed money has to come from government, which has no  
interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy  
sources.  This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a  
big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and  
solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this  
happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and  
patent the application to special markets, as is the case for the  
present mature technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated  
to a show of nonsense and irrationally.


Ed

On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote:

Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his  
investors?


I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having  
paid for a rocket engine patent's international filing.  In my  
situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every  
jurisdiction in the world because it takes only one unprotected  
jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit  
stream from that technology:  Set up a launch and manufacturing  
facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send  
their payloads to that jurisdiction.


However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different.   
All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to  
realize enormous profits.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Daniel Rocha]

Hi folks!

One more comment from Abd. You are welcome to go there and comment!:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/593



There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic
anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck.

>http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85652.html

There continues to be a high level of assumption involved in
comments, with little awareness of how weak the assumptions are.

Dr. Storms commented:

>http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85663.html

>Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been
>made without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed
>high intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the
>circumstance. Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was
>misinterpreted. Until this issue is resolved, all discussion is
>pointless and a waste of time. The time out is necessary for this
>obvious error to be explained and corrected.

and later, to Daniel Rocha:

>Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment
>since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything?

Daniel Rocha does appear to have inside information, but is
restricted in what he can reveal. Unfortunately, he may also be
adding his own intepretations, confusing everything.

>You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The
>impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If
>you know this is not true, why would you not say so?

I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the
announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information
confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was
measured as "peak." This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as
a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain.
The "time out" refers to requests from Defkalion to allow time for a
coherent response to questions; in particular, Hadjichristos is on
vacation, suffering mightily from the restrictions of being on a
Greek beach with his family. We feel his pain. We would join him if
we could, to share his difficulties. Contact me for information as to
how to provide me with transportation.

and later:

>Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment
>show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such
>an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances.
>Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to
>discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume
>the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory.
>Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the
>observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this
>exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no
>value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss.

I agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into
theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in
advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some
mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but
the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed
himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my
theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.)

Finally (?), Ed wrote, at
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85723.html

>Eric, you need to consider what a magnetic field really is when it
>is measured in space 20 cm from an object in which the field is
>generated. Such fields either result from a very large DC current or
>a very efficient alignment of magnetic domains in the material. The
>alignment must be accomplished by an applied DC current because
>otherwise the domains would have random alignment no matter how
>intense the local magnetic field might be. The only current passing
>through the device is claimed to produce a plasma inside the metal
>container and the plasma is being generated by an AC current. Even
>if a DC current were used, the field could not exceed the known
>magnetic effect of the rather modest current. In short, the claim,
>if true, is even more amazing than is the CF effect itself because
>it violates basic understanding of magnetic behavior. A more logical
>explanation is that the gauss meter and the other instruments nearby
>were responding to the effect of RF emission obtained from a Maser
>effect produced in the cavity. Since we know nothing useful about
>the observation, any attempt at an explanation is useless and only
>makes the effort look stupid.

It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed
DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is
disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their
phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the
reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a
gaus

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[James Bowery]

We have a conflation of issues getting in the way of communication:  First,
I hope my introduction of the jurisdictional arbitrage tactic has laid to
rest the notion that the US patent office's criminal conspiracy is
blocking, even though its influence may pervade the much if not most of the
world, and that we may, therefore and henceforth focus solely on obtaining
backing for development of protected intellectual property -- protected
even if in only *one* jurisdiction that refuses to participate in the US
patent office's criminal conspiracy.

Given the likely circumstance that such a jurisdiction can be found and the
patent obtained in that jurisdiction, the problem facing investors is
identical to that facing *any* investor in *any *technology development.

Moreover, no one has yet disclosed how to obtain the LENR process
reproducibly by those "skilled in the art".  The argument that someone
somewhere wrote something that might prove to have been such a disclosure
is irrelevant if the manifest practice is that, given the enormous motive,
there has been no generally accepted such replication.  Therefore, the
first such disclosure will be blocking and subsequent derivative patents
must negotiate with the prior art.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger
> problem.  Since patent protection for the basic process is not possible, a
> patent for the best application is the only protection. This is similar to
> the situation in mature technologies. However, a great deal of money will
> be needed to apply CF in the best way, with no assurance that someone else
> might find a better way before any return on the investment can be
> realized. Consequently, no incentive is created for seed money from private
> sources to get involved. This means the seed money has to come from
> government, which has no interest in getting involved because of the threat
> to present energy sources.  This leaves Rossi as the last man standing,
> i.e. until a big industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China,
> and solves the engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this
> happens, small companies will be able to get money to improve and patent
> the application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature
> technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of nonsense
> and irrationally.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors?
>
> I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a
> rocket engine patent 's
> international filing.  In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a
> patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un
> protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the
> profit stream from that technology:  Set up a launch and manufacturing
> facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their
> payloads to that jurisdiction.
>
> However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different.  All it
> takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize
> enormous profits.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well
>> was  poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY
>> patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both
>> of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF.
>>  Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may
>> eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and
>> used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy
>> by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>>  You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to
>>> benefit
>>> from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that
>>> they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development.
>>>
>>> It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have
>>> available.
>>> Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that
>>> they
>>> must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to
>>> Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather
>>> keep silent about:
>>>
>>> books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070
>>>
>>> Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the
>>> context of what we know to be historically true.
>>>
>>> We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate
>>> scam on
>>> top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly 

Re: [Vo]:Norman D. Cook @ ICCF18: Isotope shifts in LENR

[Edmund Storms]

Teslaalset, you asked a simple and reasonable question and you deserve  
an understandable answer.


The reaction being claimed is Ni + p = Cu with a proton being added to  
a Nickel isotope that results in the isotope of copper having the same  
number of neutrons.  Ni + p has greater mass than does the final Cu  
nucleus. Therefore, mass-energy must be lost during the process. As  
you can see, the mass of ALL the reactants and products need to be  
considered. These masses can be obtain from tables available on  
Wikipedia.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

We can assume that there is a significant amount of randomness in  
the LENR process that disrupts the nucleus. Another factor that adds  
to the unpredictability of the transmutation results is the added  
elements other than nickel in the reactor chamber that find their  
way into the reaction zone.


DGT documents these elements as inputs to the process in their  
ICCF-17 paper.


If you take a look at what transmutations occur during the proton-21  
reactor or that of Piantelli and Arata, you will see a high degree  
of random reaction products.


The elements go into the reaction zone many times and are reworked  
by the LENR reaction many times over and over as the reaction  
proceeds over time.


 The only quantum mechanical rule that applies is that positive  
nuclear binding energy must be released as a result of the reaction.  
If no energy is released, then the transmutation does not happen. In  
this process, both fusion and fission are likely to occur.


 It is more likely that light elements will evolve in the reaction  
then is the formation of heavy elements.


Even numbered elements like NI62 will react and elements with an odd  
number of nucleons will not. But these odd numbered elements that  
remain unaffected will serve to retain the nano-structures that  
support the reaction.








On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Teslaalset > wrote:
If we assume mass is converted into energy, heat in this case, then  
why would transmutations go in the directions of increased mass?


If Rossi is indicating Copper and Ni62 are key ingrediences, would  
Copper not be the starting point of creating Ni62 from Copper  
isotopic transmutations, or the little amount of Ni62 to trigger Co  
into a chain of Co isotopic tranmutations that also trigger other Ni  
isotopic transmutations?


I like to understand the role of both Ni62 and Copper in Rossi's  
patent applications a bit better.

Any help would be appreciated.

Re: [Vo]:Norman D. Cook @ ICCF18: Isotope shifts in LENR

[Axil Axil]

We can assume that there is a significant amount of randomness in the LENR
process that disrupts the nucleus. Another factor that adds to the
unpredictability of the transmutation results is the added elements other
than nickel in the reactor chamber that find their way into the reaction
zone.



DGT documents these elements as inputs to the process in their ICCF-17
paper.


If you take a look at what transmutations occur during the proton-21
reactor or that of Piantelli and Arata, you will see a high degree of
random reaction products.


The elements go into the reaction zone many times and are reworked by the
LENR reaction many times over and over as the reaction proceeds over time.



 The only quantum mechanical rule that applies is that positive nuclear
binding energy must be released as a result of the reaction. If no energy
is released, then the transmutation does not happen. In this process, both
fusion and fission are likely to occur.



 It is more likely that light elements will evolve in the reaction then is
the formation of heavy elements.



Even numbered elements like NI62 will react and elements with an odd number
of nucleons will not. But these odd numbered elements that remain
unaffected will serve to retain the nano-structures that support the
reaction.












On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Teslaalset wrote:

> If we assume mass is converted into energy, heat in this case, then why
> would transmutations go in the directions of increased mass?
>
> If Rossi is indicating Copper and Ni62 are key ingrediences, would Copper
> not be the starting point of creating Ni62 from Copper isotopic
> transmutations, or the little amount of Ni62 to trigger Co into a chain of
> Co isotopic tranmutations that also trigger other Ni isotopic
> transmutations?
>
> I like to understand the role of both Ni62 and Copper in Rossi's patent
> applications a bit better.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Norman D. Cook @ ICCF18: Isotope shifts in LENR

[Teslaalset]

If we assume mass is converted into energy, heat in this case, then why
would transmutations go in the directions of increased mass?

If Rossi is indicating Copper and Ni62 are key ingrediences, would Copper
not be the starting point of creating Ni62 from Copper isotopic
transmutations, or the little amount of Ni62 to trigger Co into a chain of
Co isotopic tranmutations that also trigger other Ni isotopic
transmutations?

I like to understand the role of both Ni62 and Copper in Rossi's patent
applications a bit better.
Any help would be appreciated.

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[blaze spinnaker]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit
> from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that
> they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development.
>

Bt.  Wrong.

I've sold call options on Interactive Brokers for penny stocks.

You guys are presuming that there will be zero liquidity on these stocks.
Sure, if no one buys any shares then you can't short..  That's kind of
obvious though, right?

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[James Bowery]

Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his investors?

I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having paid for a
rocket engine patent 's
international filing.  In my situation, there was no option but to obtain a
patent in every jurisdiction in the world because it takes only *one un
protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit
stream from that technology:  Set up a launch and manufacturing facility in
the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send their payloads to that
jurisdiction.

However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different.  All it
takes is *one* *protected* jurisdiction anywhere in the world to realize
enormous profits.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well was
>  poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept ANY
> patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided conclusion, both
> of which created a legal situation that doomed any serious study of CF.
>  Now the expected and natural consequences are being experienced. Rossi may
> eventually be the last man standing because he found the secret recipe and
> used his own money to start the process. His approach, while looking crazy
> by conventional standards, might be the winning path for this technology.
>
> Ed
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>  You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to
>> benefit
>> from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that
>> they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development.
>>
>> It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available.
>> Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that
>> they
>> must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to
>> Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather
>> keep silent about:
>>
>> books.google.com/books?isbn=**1553672070
>>
>> Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the
>> context of what we know to be historically true.
>>
>> We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam
>> on
>> top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented
>> by someone else).
>>
>> Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was
>> basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November
>> is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative
>> for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well".
>>
>> DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer
>> from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to
>> infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No
>> VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the
>> energy
>> is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on.
>>
>> If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they
>> do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should
>> proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or
>> Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business
>> plan,
>> which is most of the problem.
>>
>> It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a
>> scientist.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Edmund Storms]

James, your comment might be right, but I suggest we have a bigger  
problem.  Since patent protection for the basic process is not  
possible, a patent for the best application is the only protection.  
This is similar to the situation in mature technologies. However, a  
great deal of money will be needed to apply CF in the best way, with  
no assurance that someone else might find a better way before any  
return on the investment can be realized. Consequently, no incentive  
is created for seed money from private sources to get involved. This  
means the seed money has to come from government, which has no  
interest in getting involved because of the threat to present energy  
sources.  This leaves Rossi as the last man standing, i.e. until a big  
industry discovers the secret recipe, perhaps in China, and solves the  
engineering problems faster than Rossi can. After this happens, small  
companies will be able to get money to improve and patent the  
application to special markets, as is the case for the present mature  
technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are treated to a show of  
nonsense and irrationally.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:54 AM, James Bowery wrote:

Perhaps it is the winning path for this technology but for his  
investors?


I have a bit of experience with international patent law, having  
paid for a rocket engine patent's international filing.  In my  
situation, there was no option but to obtain a patent in every  
jurisdiction in the world because it takes only one unprotected  
jurisdiction anywhere in the world to absorb _all_ of the profit  
stream from that technology:  Set up a launch and manufacturing  
facility in the unprotected jurisdiction and have everyone send  
their payloads to that jurisdiction.


However, with something like LENR the game is entirely different.   
All it takes is one protected jurisdiction anywhere in the world to  
realize enormous profits.



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the  
well was  poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to  
accept ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided  
conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any  
serious study of CF.  Now the expected and natural consequences are  
being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing  
because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start  
the process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional  
standards, might be the winning path for this technology.


Ed

On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to  
benefit
from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think  
that
they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of  
development.


It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have  
available.
Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates  
that they
must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were  
moving to
Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would  
rather

keep silent about:

books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070

Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in  
the

context of what we know to be historically true.

We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate  
scam on
top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and  
patented

by someone else).

Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in  
Italy was
basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in  
November
is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net  
negative

for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well".

DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much  
longer
from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems  
to
infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded  
them. No
VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the  
energy

is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on.

If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe  
that they
do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they  
should
proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a  
University or
Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead  
business plan,

which is most of the problem.

It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a
scientist.

Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Daniel Rocha]

This is the link for the original post. Comments are welcome!

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/584
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
> periods.
>

Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6
s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I
am not sure.


***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules
> for several hours and costs maybe $300k.
>

No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few
have generated 10 to 300 MJ.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Edmund Storms]

Good comment, Jones. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the well  
was  poisoned from the start by the US patent office refusal to accept  
ANY patent for many years and the DOE panel by its one sided  
conclusion, both of which created a legal situation that doomed any  
serious study of CF.  Now the expected and natural consequences are  
being experienced. Rossi may eventually be the last man standing  
because he found the secret recipe and used his own money to start the  
process. His approach, while looking crazy by conventional standards,  
might be the winning path for this technology.


Ed
On Aug 13, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to  
benefit
from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think  
that
they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of  
development.


It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have  
available.
Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates  
that they
must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were  
moving to
Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would  
rather

keep silent about:

books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070

Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in  
the

context of what we know to be historically true.

We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate  
scam on
top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and  
patented

by someone else).

Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in  
Italy was
basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in  
November
is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net  
negative

for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well".

DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much  
longer
from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems  
to
infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded  
them. No
VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the  
energy

is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on.

If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe  
that they
do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they  
should
proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a  
University or
Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead  
business plan,

which is most of the problem.

It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a
scientist.

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Daniel Rocha]

How can you possibly know these things?


2013/8/13 Jones Beene 

> DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer
> from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to
> infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them.

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

RE: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Jones Beene]

You are correct AF. There is little way for any outside investor to benefit
from a DGT stock offering - no matter what they have... and I think that
they do have a valid thermal anomaly in the early stages of development. 

It will be a laugh to see how many billions of shares they have available.
Here is a document on Canadian legal requirements which indicates that they
must have actually filed a prospectus even before as they were moving to
Vancouver - and included a lot of facts which they probably would rather
keep silent about:

books.google.com/books?isbn=1553672070

Where is their prospectus? It should be enlightening to read it - in the
context of what we know to be historically true. 

We tend to forget that it is entirely possible to build a deliberate scam on
top of valid energy anomaly (especially an anomaly discovered and patented
by someone else).

Even if everything which DGT showed the world on the Internet in Italy was
basically accurate as to the thermal anomaly, a stock offering in November
is premature and doomed by circumstances. This can only be a net negative
for the rest of the field. It is called "poisoning the well".

DGT are a minimum of three years from a commercial product and much longer
from mass production. They have no valid patent. Their process seems to
infringe on half a dozen patent applications, which have preceded them. No
VC will touch them. The lifetime of the unit is unknown, even if the energy
is strongly anomalous for a few days. The list goes on-and-on.

If they had anything valid at all, and let me repeat - I believe that they
do have something valid but it was invented elsewhere - then they should
proceed to try to understand the phenomenon better through a University or
Government, and that happens only by abandoning a brain-dead business plan,
which is most of the problem. 

It is the kind of business plan that a scammer would device - not a
scientist. 

From: Analog Fan 

>"There are no short opportunities either for this kind of
pump and dump."

>Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so.
Eventually you'll realize you just logically said A & !A.

Jones analysis is essentially correct. It's very difficult
to short Canadian pump and dump stocks. Most brokerages will not accept
short orders for penny stocks. And in general, markets can stay irrational
for longer than you can stay solvent. It doesn't matter if the stock crashes
after you've already had to cover a margin call.

On the larger topic, fraud in Canadian OTC/"wildcat" markets
is rife, and the penalties are few. Canadian exchanges would be the ideal
location for a fraudulent cold fusion enterprise, and the level of corporate
disclosure and due diligence is not comparable to US exchanges. I doubt we
will get to see many details of Defkalion's technology and customers, and I
also highly doubt that their roadshow includes any actual technology
demonstration beyond a Powerpoint deck.

BRE-X is the most famous example of a Canadian stock fraud-
a $6 billion mining company built entirely on elaborate faked test results.
After the stock crashed, the RCMP eventually dropped all charges and other
civil cases failed, so nobody went to jail over it. The founder was tracked
down years later in the Bahamas by armed thugs and died shortly afterwards.
It took well over a decade for the entire BRE-X story to play out.

The recent sorry tale of Zenn Motors (and their claims for
EESTOR) could be headed for a similar fate based on the postings at
http://theeestory.com

AF
<>

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Edmund Storms]

LENR does NOT contradict current theory. LENR is a different  
phenomenon from hot fusion. Consequently the theory applied to hot  
fusion cannot be applied too cold fusion. We can only say that a piece  
of the puzzle is missing - nothing more.


Ed
On Aug 12, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:


LENR contradicts current theory.

***Experiment trumps theory  ~Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Winning  
Nuclear Physicist.

Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION

[James Bowery]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>>
>> We're very fickle, here.  Once some solid information comes from
>> defkalion (e.g., via a reliable third party such as National Instruments),
>> we'll all be saying we believed them all along.
>>
>
> Darn right we will! Not only that, some of us will modestly accept credit
> for Defkalion's achievements.
>
> - Jed
>
> I think the pivotal moment for Defkalion and Rossi came when I published
here, at vortex-l, for the first time my theory of resonant  BEC phonon
dark Ruberg matter's interaction with the galactic plane's cosmic-ray
shielding orientation.

Thank you, thank you -- I don't deserve *all* the credit for this, of
course.

Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:

>
> We're very fickle, here.  Once some solid information comes from defkalion
> (e.g., via a reliable third party such as National Instruments), we'll all
> be saying we believed them all along.
>

Darn right we will! Not only that, some of us will modestly accept credit
for Defkalion's achievements.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration

[DJ Cravens]

The reason I have a "spa in a box" is because of its size.  You need a fairly 
large volume to rule out internal chemical storage.
 
Here are ROUGH order of magnitude numbers.  My point is you need something  
>100 gallons or so for a typical system.   Yes, I have 2 digit metric numbers 
but I don't want the point to get lost in the numbers. I am using mixed units 
since gallons are more easily understood by the public at large.
 
The spa in a box holds 300 gallons (or about 1000 l of water). It takes about 1 
kW hour to heat it a little slower than 1 degree C. (about 75% eff around room 
temp with lid).  A typical car lead acid battery holds about 1 kw hour - a 
lithium battery about 2 to 3 times that.  
 
My present system is a glow discharge through a gas/powder fluidized bed.  It 
has a volume about the size of a car battery (not counting HV source and 
pumps).  
 
That means that to be about an order of magnitude above chemical storage, I 
need dump into that 300 gallons for a working day.  
 
A small beverage cooler will just not work to rule out chemical storage.
 
1000 liters is about right.   filling to 200 gallons is very do-able and would 
shorten your times.
notice that 1kW is about right for a typical house hold plug (perhaps 1.5 but 
 
D2
 
PS... you got to have fun.   I keep imagining a PR demo with two spas - one 
with CF heating and one with R heating at the same input power.  Then have 
models in the warm one.   :)I think it would quickly get the point across. 
   OK, In my dreams. 
 

 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:41:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:




You would not need to go to 90C.
I agree.
 
   The concept of heating a volume of water is very valid.

Of course. The questions are: how much water, in what kind of container, to 
what temperature, over what duration? I have no doubt that a spa is a heck of a 
lot better than a 10,000 gallon tank truck! It is more practical, far cheaper, 
easier to insulate, easier for the observers to measure, and it has many other 
advantages.

I think a large insulated container such as a plastic beverage cooler would be 
fine. I don't see the need for a spa. Of course the cooler reaches the terminal 
temperature sooner than a spa, but I don't see a problem with that. Dump the 
water and heat a new batch if want to make the test go longer.

- Jed
  

[Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims.

[Daniel Rocha]

My (Daniel's comment)

I cannot subscribe to all that is being written, specially the reliability
issue at the end. But as far as I can see, this is a rational attitude that
most of this forum hasn't displayed.


I've been privately discussing the report, made by Yeong Kim at
ICCF-18, that Defkalion has been seeing what appear to be anomalous
electromagnetic effects; Kim reported, in his presentation, a
measurement at 20 cm of 0.6 Tesla, during or at the onset of plasma
stimulation, increasing to 1.6 Tesla in the heat phase (after
stimulation?). The report at the Conference was totally sketchy,
little more than I just stated -- or less. Bob Higgens reported on
vortex-l that he'd asked Kim about this, and Kim had indicated that
the kind of meter had been used that is used to measure the field
strength of permanent magnets. I.e., a gaussmeter, there are many such.

Much has been made of this report as being ridiculous. If a 1.6 Tesla
DC magnetic field had been reported at 20 cm., this is far, far
outside of what would be considered plausible. It would have dramatic
consequences, and it could be dangerous. For example, one would not
want to allow anyone with a cardiac pacemaker near the thing when it
was operating.

No base reading, i.e., with no operation, was given. At first, I
suspected that Gauss had been erroneously reported as Tesla, so I
asked about this, and there was response, semi-privately, from
Defkalion. That the figure was in Tesla was confirmed, though
confirming details are still missing, such as the model and type of
meter used, and how it was used, except that it has been disclosed
that this was a "peak" reading. Some meters will show peak. They may
vary in bandpass and response. Even as "peak," this remains a
remarkable report.

Peak 1.6 T is not the same animal as DC 1.6 T. It would take much
more analysis, with more needed detail, to consider the plausibility
of this report. In the end, experiment is King. We do not deny
reports because they seem implausible. We *question* them.

Additional information was provided, that Defkalion had seen
disruption of electronic equipment by the device, such as their phone
system being shut down; the measurements reported were with all
shielding removed; normally, they operate the Hyperion with mu-metal
and other shielding, to cut down on EMF interference. It is not
surprising that there could be massive noise, they are stimulating
the reaction through a high voltage applied to those spark plugs used
as convenient feed-thrus at either end of the device. Classic spark
RF signal. Wide-band, mostly illegal nowadays, because of how much
disruption it can create. Devices that can generate this kind of
noise must be shielded, or they will be located and shut down.

So ... have others seen RF anomalies like this? My opinion at this
point is that a connection with the reaction has not been
demonstrated; rather, the reported correlation, with the meager
details we have, is with *stimulation*. It is quite possible that the
plasma causes heavy magnetic alignment of the nickel nanoparticles in
the reaction; it is reported that the noise is found above a certain
critical temperature, which would be consistent with that. I.e.,
above some temperature, nickel could be much more magnetizable.

And this, then, may be related to how the Hyperion works. That's what
Kim is interested in and is talking about.

We also have, particularly because of some astute analysis by a
prominent member of the MFMP team, a better idea of what is inside
the Hyperion, and probably the eCat as well. Defkalion has been quite
open about this, in fact: nickel foam, loaded with nanoparticles,
probably originally pure nickel, but, more lately, complex
structures. Nickel foam makes perfect sense. It's a regular
commercial product, easily obtainable. The foam would rapidly conduct
heat away from reacting nanoparticles, suppressing the sintering that
has plagued gas-loaded LENR researchers. It would provide reading
access to the particles by the gas, and access by the plasma from
Defkalion's stimulation. Periodic plasma bursts may keep the reactant
clean and operating

Exciting times.

We will not know for sure about Defkalion (and the same for Rossi)
until there are fully independent tests. But, setting aside worries
about fraud, Defkalion, in particular, is looking quite good. Most of
the heavily skeptical comment I've seen on the July Defkalion demos
has been misinformed. I.e., for example, it was speculated that the
flow meter was over-reporting flow because of steam in the pipe. But
the flow meter is *before* the reactor cooling coils, steam there is
extremely unlikely. The water is low temperature at that point.

In addition, the Defkalion displays showed coolant water at 160
degrees C, which is, of course, preposterous at the low pressures
involved. But this is quite straightforward. Defkalions displays were
set up to assume unboiled water, neglecting the massive heat of
v

Re: [Vo]:just published -with permission- a paper about DEFKALION

[Alain Sepeda]

Trying to be positive I would say that is a Zeppelin failure (Until the
last failure, Zeppelin was saying that he was learning only from his
failures... and by the way we have a Zeppelin today over paris)).

Defkalion tried to seduce ICCF18, and LENR scientists.
 If you add Rob's comments of patent problems, you see that Defkalion can
only escape from the 95% chance to fail, by continuous innovation, because
LENR cannot be patented.
This is why they need scientists, engineers. this is why they claim 1% of
their income to be put in basic research, and why they partners with people
like Defkalion europe.
An this is finally why they tried to seduce ICCF17 and ICCF18...

It didn't work. I advise you to read Antifragile of the Stockholm syndrome
description.
In frenche we also have the idiom :" chat échaudé craint l'eau
froide" (scalded cat fears cold water)
The critics found here are (unlike those on deniers groups) absolutely
real... It is just that like Blaze spinnaker says, at first sight, it look
surprising on vortex to see, not skeptical (good, and justified), but
negative vision...

The fact is that LENR domain have tried to seduce the scientific community,
dancing with sexy 50sigma evidences, and it did not work. If LENR was a
sexy girl and Scientific Community was a boy, I would say that he is gay.
No dance will work.

then came the entrepreneur who don't play the same game... the end of a
world. a paradigm change.

One failure of DGT is probably, like I would have done myself, to imagine
that pleasing the deniers would help being accepted (typical of desperate
unilateral lovers).
They just asked for COP 1.1, they refused to account for steam, to avoid
critics like those on Rossi... they learned from Rossi's problems in 2011
(rossi learned in accepting the no test will work, unless 3rd party, and
that steam or flow should be avoided). It failed.


I hope DGT entrepreneur are antifragile, benefiting like Zeppelin of their
failures. And this demo is a huge failure. It seduced few, and raised huge
concerns.

however it also raised concerns, that now identified, can be corrected.
I hope they take advantage of that detailed critic to correct it... not
forgetting that the problem is cognitive, psychiatric, epistemological,
 not physical.

NB: by the way, about Matt blowing the fuse, it seems that he simply
trigger the "differential disjunctor", which protect humans from
electrocution, in 20ms max, starting from 30mA fault...


2013/8/13 Jed Rothwell 

> David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>> My concern is that the exit flow rate is not accurately measured at an
>> input meter when reverse steam pressure is applied at the high temperatures
>> seen.  It has not been proven that the input gauge is accurate under this
>> condition.
>
>
> Me too. That's what worries me. Well said.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration

[Alain Sepeda]

one problem I expect is lack of trust in tha pump.
it should be thirdd party, I mean provided by mega-skeptics, not by
accomplice like any commercial or open-mind company or institution like
NASA or Elforsk.

the worst problem is not managing experimental setup but pathologic denial.

about steam, peter gave me an idea :
to split water in hot/cold circuit, the hot through the reactor, the cold
one mixed afterward to condensate steam.

in a way it is what happened during the test, in the "sink hole" where they
said the steam was condensed (thus canceling any pressure)...

by the way during the demo I've heard huge noise, can someone tell me if it
was supposed to be steam (from the bucket tap), or something else?

anyway if the setup was as I imagine, with a cold water mixing in the
"sink-hole" (dunno how to say), there is no pressure in the pipes, and
opening the "bucket tap" will not produce high pressure steam, but
atmospheric steam at the pressure of the sinkhole...

in fact for steam flow the sinkhole is a huge aspirator, perfectly matching
the huge blower that boiling reactor is...

maybe it explain many questions of skeptics...

anyway the problem is not scientific but psychologic and cognitive.
the evidence should not demand any neuron to be understood, because all
energy of skeptics will be concentrated in finding holes and shadows, not
on computing evidences.

and beside the hard-deniers, the usual laymen will interpret any claim of
doubt by deniers, as challenging...
If they don't understand with 1 or two neuron (they are lazy, not evil)
that the skeptics claims are absurds, they will comfortably stay skeptic,
thus follow the wikipedia position.

this is why stories with buckets, kitchen tools, talk or bathtub, are very
good ideas.


2013/8/12 DJ Cravens 

> yes, I often use an FMI metering pump.  They have good control.
>
> D2
>
>
> --
> CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Suggestions for a more effective demonstration
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:50:03 -0600
>
>
> Jed, a better method is to use a constant rate pump. These are available
> and are very reliable and accurate. The rate is not affected by back
> pressure, within reason and can be adjusted to achieve the required delta
> T.
>
> Ed
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>
> I think the filters were to protect the flow meter.  I think the water was
> just out of the taps and who knows what Greek water is like.
>
>
> This was in Italy. But okay, that makes sense. I would use a less
> sensitive flow meter. Granted, those things are ornery and often get
> plugged up or broken.
>
> The kind used in your house to bill for your water is robust but maybe not
> sensitive enough. On the other hand, if they boost the flow rate up to 4
> L/min it should do. That would be fast enough to prevent boiling, I think.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The great thing about Defkalion going public starting Nov 1st

[Analog Fan]

>"There are no short opportunities either for this kind of pump and dump."
>
>Read that sentence over to yourself a dozen times or so.   Eventually you'll 
>realize you just logically said A & !A.

Jones analysis is essentially correct. It's very difficult to short Canadian 
pump and dump stocks. Most brokerages will not accept short orders for penny 
stocks. And in general, markets can stay irrational for longer than you can 
stay solvent. It doesn't matter if the stock crashes after you've already had 
to cover a margin call.

On the larger topic, fraud in Canadian OTC/"wildcat" markets is rife, and the 
penalties are few. Canadian exchanges would be the ideal location for a 
fraudulent cold fusion enterprise, and the level of corporate disclosure and 
due diligence is not comparable to US exchanges. I doubt we will get to see 
many details of Defkalion's technology and customers, and I also highly doubt 
that their roadshow includes any actual technology demonstration beyond a 
Powerpoint deck.


BRE-X is the most famous example of a Canadian stock fraud- a $6 billion mining 
company built entirely on elaborate faked test results. After the stock 
crashed, the RCMP eventually dropped all charges and other civil cases failed, 
so nobody went to jail over it. The founder was tracked down years later in the 
Bahamas by armed thugs and died shortly afterwards. It took well over a decade 
for the entire BRE-X story to play out.

The recent sorry tale of Zenn Motors (and their claims for EESTOR) could be 
headed for a similar fate based on the postings at http://theeestory.com

AF