Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

So maybe it will be known as the Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid
BEC theory, the V1DLLBEC.



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
> In the end, I think a vibrating 1Dimensional BEC (or 1DLL) along with a
> combination of theories will finally prove out.LENR will be a
> complicated theoretical phenomena.
>
>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
> Notably, F. Hayek, one of the greatest advocates of free market
>> economics, argued that everyone should receive a basic income or (what
>> he called a minimum income) regardless of employment.
>
>
> He did?!?? I am amazed. How very sensible. I guess I do not know much
> about him. I am familiar with him of course, but I have not read the book.
>
> I'll bet none of his modern followers would agree.
>
> - Jed
>
>
Update: After reading this blog post, I have to acknowledge that I
misrepresented Hayek's view.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2014/01/02/did-hayek-support-a-basic-income-guarantee/

I based my interpretation on a passage from the "The Road to Serfdom" but
based on what he wrote in other books and what he said in a subsequent
interview he only endorsed a means-tested income for people UNABLE to earn
a living. Hayek has narrow-minded market-oriented and sexist conception of
what constitutes work.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] BLP New Mills paper, with replication reported

[Axil Axil]

The alternative explanation for the EUV radiation profile of the Mills
plasma system is photon cavity compression and expansion of EMF from
ambient source inside the system.



The input ambient sources include both infrared radiation from heat and
gamma radiation from nuclear reactions.



All verities of EMF waveforms with a wide range of frequencies enter these
cavities, these various waveforms and combined and rearranged into a narrow
range of EUV frequencies.



These nano-cavities are from coalescing nanoparticles that form after the
hot plasma cools immediately after spark discharge. These particles are
derived from metals, noble gases, hydrogen, volatile elements and any
crystalized combination of these elements thereof. Just about any element
or compounds can form nano-particles from plasma vapor condensation.



As these dust particles coalesce, they form piles and clumps where photon
cavities exist in the nano-spaces between  particles.






On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Hoh (disambiguation)
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>   (Redirected from HOH 
> (disambiguation)
> )
>  
> 
>  Look up *HOH * or *hoh
> * in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
>
> *Hoh* or *HOH* commonly refers to:
>
>- HOH , a variation of the chemical
>formula for water
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Corrected link:
>>
>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/ContHOH.pdf
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Physicists in Japan have shown that "entirely end-bonded" multi-walled
> carbon nanotubes can superconduct at temperatures as high as 12 K, which is
> 30 times greater than for single-walled carbon nanotubes.
>

It's always good to look at the applicability of a piece of research that
is suggestive.  At 12 K, this particular effect appears at a temperature 81
times smaller than the neighborhood of 973 K (700 C) sometimes discussed in
connection with LENR.

A cooper pair is a quasiparticle -- a combination of two electrons that are
weakly bound by their interaction with phonons in the metal.  BCS
superconductivity is a delicate effect, which is why low temperatures are
needed.  When the temperatures increase beyond a certain level, far below
700 C, the heat in the environment overwhelms the effect and it disappears.

I myself first learned about the delicate nature of quasiparticles by
asking a different question, one about a "dipolariton" -- a quasiparticle
involving a photon and an electron:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23640/what-interactions-would-take-place-between-a-free-proton-and-a-dipolariton

The comments go into more detail and were very helpful.  The important
point in the present context is that the kinds of superconductivity that we
know of (normal and so-called "high-temperature") have only been confirmed
at very low temperatures.  There are details in some of the LENR
experiments that are suggestive in some respects of superconductivity, such
as a drop in resistance in electrolytic cells.  But either we should look
to other explanations first, or we should be prepared to explain how an
effect that is normally seen near absolute zero is now appearing in very
hot nickel.  If anyone on this list states with great assurance that
superconductivity is occurring in LENR, it would be good to ask for more
information about the sources they're drawing on to get to that conclusion.
 Be on the lookout for blatant non-sequitors.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] BLP New Mills paper, with replication reported

[James Bowery]

Hoh (disambiguation)
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from HOH
(disambiguation)
)

Look up *HOH * or *hoh
* in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

*Hoh* or *HOH* commonly refers to:

   - HOH , a variation of the chemical
   formula for water



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Corrected link:
>
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/ContHOH.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Snarky "let me google that for you" site

[Jed Rothwell]

Oops. Try it with plus signs:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:lenr-canr.org+tritium+los+alamos

Or:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cold+fusion+tritium+los+alamos

Brings up some interesting old refs from the New York Times.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] BLP New Mills paper, with replication reported

[Jed Rothwell]

Corrected link:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/ContHOH.pdf

[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Snarky "let me google that for you" site

[Jed Rothwell]

Snarky, but a good response to skeptics. Try this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:lenr-canr.org tritium los alamos

I like the way it says, "Was that so hard?" at the end.

- Jed

[Vo]:[Vo] BLP New Mills paper, with replication reported

[AlanG]

 http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/ContHOH.pdf
 

Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

Wouldn't it be lovely to know for sure if CNT are indeed part of the E-Cat
secret?

***By CNT I think you mean CarbonNanoTubes.  I doubt they are integral to
Rossi's secret.  Rossi didn't have the background.  Focardi said that his
major contribution was separating H2 gas into monoatomic H1 gas before
loading up the metal lattice.  He probably used Tungsten at first, then
switched to electrical fields, and has tried all kinds of things.  The
latest generation of ECat seems to use AC fields.  That's his "secret".


What happened after he got success using this approach is his own IP.  He
has had more time on point with working LENR cells than anyone else in the
last 10 years because he got the effect to be more easily reproducible.
The temptation for every tinkerer at that point is to go into production as
fast as possible.


Rossi is much more a tinkerer than a theorist.  If Rossi had a viable
theory, he'd have made more progress.  But he has been in a position no one
else has been:  He has been able to experimentally disprove all the
theories out there.  So when he said to Krivit that it looked more like
Electron Capture than the Small Nuclear Force, he was in a position to know
when no one else was.  Krivit, being all-in for the Widom-Larson theory,
immediately started talking Rossi down as a fraud.


In the end, I think a vibrating 1Dimensional BEC (or 1DLL) along with a
combination of theories will finally prove out.LENR will be a
complicated theoretical phenomena.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>
>
>
> My conjecture would be due to the skin effect.  If you can get a
> superconducting effect on the outer skin, Electrical Fields might push the
> H1 monoatomic atoms further into the substrate.
>
>
>
> I'm not even sure you need a full superconducting effect. Containment
> alone, to reduce freedom move movement - could be adequate.
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be lovely to know for sure if CNT are indeed part of the E-Cat
> secret?
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Terry Blanton]

EXCLUSIVE: A cure for ALL cancers is on the way as scientists make
major breakthrough

MILLIONS of cancer -sufferers have been given fresh hope of a cure
after ground-breaking research.

By: Giles Sheldrick
Published: Thu, January 16, 2014

The breakthrough came in a 16-year study of the only -animal immune to cancer.

The discovery by an Israeli specialist was last night hailed as
"radical and potentially life-changing".

In a world first, Professor Aaron Avivi and his team found that cells
from the blind mole rat and its cousin the naked mole rat secrete a
substance that destroys cancer cells in mammals - including humans.

Experts think harvesting this substance and making it safe to digest
could wipe out a disease that kills eight million people each year
worldwide. Last night Prof Avivi, of Haifa University in Israel was
heading to London where he is due  to present his findings to
professionals.

His radical approach studied the two species of rat that both live
mostly underground - which the team discovered had led to a dramatic
evolution of their metabolism.

Blind mole rats outlive other rodents by at least 20 years with no
outward signs of ageing. Researchers have never located a cancerous
tumour on one of them.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/454188/EXCLUSIVE-Cure-for-ALL-cancers-is-on-the-way-as-scientists-discover-major-breakthrough

RE: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

My conjecture would be due to the skin effect.  If you can get a
superconducting effect on the outer skin, Electrical Fields might push the
H1 monoatomic atoms further into the substrate.  

 

I'm not even sure you need a full superconducting effect. Containment alone,
to reduce freedom move movement - could be adequate.

 

Wouldn't it be lovely to know for sure if CNT are indeed part of the E-Cat
secret?

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:some news on the BLP web page

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Marcus Haber 

 

I just stumbled upon a new entry on the "what's new" part of the BLP homepage…. 
They will have a "Presentation by Dr. Randell Mills at the twenty-first annual 
Groundhog Day   Investment Forum, hosted 
by Emerald Asset Management." on February the 6th.

 

LOL. Randell Mills and Groundhog day … I am a bit stunned by this unplanned 
match – must have been made in Heaven, as they say.

 

“Groundhog Day” the movie … was a surprisingly meaningful comedy, in which Bill 
Murray (“separated at birth” from RM ?) plays an arrogant and egocentric TV 
weatherman. On assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event in rural 
Punxsutawney, which is big deal that part of the World - he finds himself 
trapped in a “time loop”, repeating the same day over and over: Groundhog Day … 
again and again … again and again… do I need to draw a picture of how this 
relates to BLP and the recent demo ??

 

Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

My conjecture would be due to the skin effect.  If you can get a
superconducting effect on the outer skin, Electrical Fields might push the
H1 monoatomic atoms further into the substrate.  The farther into the
substrate that the H1 Gas is adsorbed, the more likely the Anomalous Heat
Effect will show itself.

But like I said, I'm not that well read.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Why do you think that the Ni/H reactor designs include the complete
> resurfacing of the  5 micron nickel micro-particles with nanowires?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> I actually have been thinking about this for couple of days and the
>> Luttinger Liquid CONCEPT rings a bell, although I probably never read the
>> original report.
>>
>> I probably read about it here:
>>
>> *Nanotubes break superconducting 
>> record*
>>  *PhysicsWeb ^
>> 
>> * | 2/14/2006 | Belle Dume'
>>
>> Posted on *Wed 15 Feb 2006  * 
>>
>> Physicists in Japan have shown that "entirely end-bonded" multi-walled
>> carbon nanotubes can superconduct at temperatures as high as 12 K, which is
>> 30 times greater than for single-walled carbon nanotubes. The discovery has
>> been made by a team led by Junji Haruyama of Aoyama Gakuin University in
>> Kanagawa. The superconducting nanotubes could be used to study fundamental
>> 1D quantum effects and also find practical applications in molecular
>> quantum computing (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 057001).
>>
>> Superconductivity is the complete absence of electrical resistance and is
>> observed in certain materials when they are cooled below a superconducting
>> transition temperature (Tc). Physicists agree that superconductivity relies
>> on getting electrons to overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion and form
>> "Cooper pairs". In the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of
>> low-temperature superconductivity, the electrons are held together because
>> of their interactions with phonons -- lattice vibrations in the material.
>>
>> However, 1D conductors like carbon nanotubes -- rolled up sheets of
>> graphite just nanometres in diameter -- are not naturally superconducting.
>> One reason for this is the presence of so-called Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid
>> (TLL) states in the material, which cause the electrons to repulse each
>> other and so destroy Cooper pairs.
>>
>> Now, however, Haruyama and colleagues have designed a system in which
>> there is a superconducting phase that can compete with the TLL phase and
>> even overcome it -- a feat hitherto believed impossible. The system
>> consists of an array of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, each of which
>> consists of a series of concentric nanotube shells. Electrical contacts
>> made of metal are bonded to the tubes so they touch the top of all the
>> shells. Conventional "bulk junction" contacts, in contrast, touch only the
>> outermost shell of a tube and along its length.
>>
>> Haruyama and co-workers grew their multiwalled nanotubes from a template
>> of porous alumina. Next, they cut the tops off the nanotubes using
>> ultrasound or etching techniques and then evaporated a gold electrode onto
>> the exposed ends of the tubes. In this way, nearly all of the nanotube
>> shells were made electrically active.
>>
>> The Japan team find that the end-bonded nanotubes lose all resistivity at
>> temperatures below 12 K. According to the researchers, this is because the
>> TLL states are suppressed so that superconductivity can appear. Moreover,
>> the Tc depends on the numbers of electrically activated shells and the
>> physicists will now try to increase this figure by making more or all of
>> the shells active.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>> No, unfortunately I'm not that well read.  But since it was suggested
>>> that we should be calling this something other than BEC, a 1D  Luttinger
>>> Liquid sounds good to me -- the 1DLL theory...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:27 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint >> > wrote:
>>>
 I think this is where Kevin got his theory!  Even if he was not
 consciously aware of it...

 J



 Jan 23, 2014

 Quantum physics in 1-D: New experiment supports long-predicted
 'Luttinger liquid' model

 http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-physics-d-long-predicted-luttinger.html

 "In 1950, Japanese Nobel Prize winner Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, followed by
 American physicist Joaquin Mazdak Luttinger in 1963, came up with a
 mathematical model showing that the effects of one particle on all others
 in a one-dimensional line would be much greater than in two- or
 three-dimensional spaces. Among quantum physicists, this model came to be
 known as the "Luttinger liquid" state."



 -mark iverson


>>>

Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Axil Axil]

Why do you think that the Ni/H reactor designs include the complete
resurfacing of the  5 micron nickel micro-particles with nanowires?


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I actually have been thinking about this for couple of days and the
> Luttinger Liquid CONCEPT rings a bell, although I probably never read the
> original report.
>
> I probably read about it here:
>
> *Nanotubes break superconducting 
> record*
>  *PhysicsWeb ^
> 
> * | 2/14/2006 | Belle Dume'
>
> Posted on *Wed 15 Feb 2006  * 
>
> Physicists in Japan have shown that "entirely end-bonded" multi-walled
> carbon nanotubes can superconduct at temperatures as high as 12 K, which is
> 30 times greater than for single-walled carbon nanotubes. The discovery has
> been made by a team led by Junji Haruyama of Aoyama Gakuin University in
> Kanagawa. The superconducting nanotubes could be used to study fundamental
> 1D quantum effects and also find practical applications in molecular
> quantum computing (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 057001).
>
> Superconductivity is the complete absence of electrical resistance and is
> observed in certain materials when they are cooled below a superconducting
> transition temperature (Tc). Physicists agree that superconductivity relies
> on getting electrons to overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion and form
> "Cooper pairs". In the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of
> low-temperature superconductivity, the electrons are held together because
> of their interactions with phonons -- lattice vibrations in the material.
>
> However, 1D conductors like carbon nanotubes -- rolled up sheets of
> graphite just nanometres in diameter -- are not naturally superconducting.
> One reason for this is the presence of so-called Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid
> (TLL) states in the material, which cause the electrons to repulse each
> other and so destroy Cooper pairs.
>
> Now, however, Haruyama and colleagues have designed a system in which
> there is a superconducting phase that can compete with the TLL phase and
> even overcome it -- a feat hitherto believed impossible. The system
> consists of an array of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, each of which
> consists of a series of concentric nanotube shells. Electrical contacts
> made of metal are bonded to the tubes so they touch the top of all the
> shells. Conventional "bulk junction" contacts, in contrast, touch only the
> outermost shell of a tube and along its length.
>
> Haruyama and co-workers grew their multiwalled nanotubes from a template
> of porous alumina. Next, they cut the tops off the nanotubes using
> ultrasound or etching techniques and then evaporated a gold electrode onto
> the exposed ends of the tubes. In this way, nearly all of the nanotube
> shells were made electrically active.
>
> The Japan team find that the end-bonded nanotubes lose all resistivity at
> temperatures below 12 K. According to the researchers, this is because the
> TLL states are suppressed so that superconductivity can appear. Moreover,
> the Tc depends on the numbers of electrically activated shells and the
> physicists will now try to increase this figure by making more or all of
> the shells active.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> No, unfortunately I'm not that well read.  But since it was suggested
>> that we should be calling this something other than BEC, a 1D  Luttinger
>> Liquid sounds good to me -- the 1DLL theory...
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:27 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is where Kevin got his theory!  Even if he was not
>>> consciously aware of it...
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan 23, 2014
>>>
>>> Quantum physics in 1-D: New experiment supports long-predicted
>>> 'Luttinger liquid' model
>>>
>>> http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-physics-d-long-predicted-luttinger.html
>>>
>>> "In 1950, Japanese Nobel Prize winner Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, followed by
>>> American physicist Joaquin Mazdak Luttinger in 1963, came up with a
>>> mathematical model showing that the effects of one particle on all others
>>> in a one-dimensional line would be much greater than in two- or
>>> three-dimensional spaces. Among quantum physicists, this model came to be
>>> known as the "Luttinger liquid" state."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -mark iverson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:13 AM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence
>>> for LENR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting Kevin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be especially relevant if the tubes in question are shown to
>>> be a composite, made with graphite fibers, or CNT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The inside of a carbon nanotube would seem to favor a single line of
>>> dense h

Fwd: [Vo]:Need suggestions on plastic detection

[fznidarsic]

I don't have any poloriod.  If you do, please look at the plastic transmission 
through poloroid let me know what happens.  How do the plastics react to 
poloroid light?




Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence for LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

I actually have been thinking about this for couple of days and the
Luttinger Liquid CONCEPT rings a bell, although I probably never read the
original report.

I probably read about it here:

*Nanotubes break superconducting
record*
 *PhysicsWeb ^

* | 2/14/2006 | Belle Dume'

Posted on *Wed 15 Feb 2006  * 

Physicists in Japan have shown that "entirely end-bonded" multi-walled
carbon nanotubes can superconduct at temperatures as high as 12 K, which is
30 times greater than for single-walled carbon nanotubes. The discovery has
been made by a team led by Junji Haruyama of Aoyama Gakuin University in
Kanagawa. The superconducting nanotubes could be used to study fundamental
1D quantum effects and also find practical applications in molecular
quantum computing (Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 057001).

Superconductivity is the complete absence of electrical resistance and is
observed in certain materials when they are cooled below a superconducting
transition temperature (Tc). Physicists agree that superconductivity relies
on getting electrons to overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion and form
"Cooper pairs". In the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory of
low-temperature superconductivity, the electrons are held together because
of their interactions with phonons -- lattice vibrations in the material.

However, 1D conductors like carbon nanotubes -- rolled up sheets of
graphite just nanometres in diameter -- are not naturally superconducting.
One reason for this is the presence of so-called Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid
(TLL) states in the material, which cause the electrons to repulse each
other and so destroy Cooper pairs.

Now, however, Haruyama and colleagues have designed a system in which there
is a superconducting phase that can compete with the TLL phase and even
overcome it -- a feat hitherto believed impossible. The system consists of
an array of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, each of which consists of a
series of concentric nanotube shells. Electrical contacts made of metal are
bonded to the tubes so they touch the top of all the shells. Conventional
"bulk junction" contacts, in contrast, touch only the outermost shell of a
tube and along its length.

Haruyama and co-workers grew their multiwalled nanotubes from a template of
porous alumina. Next, they cut the tops off the nanotubes using ultrasound
or etching techniques and then evaporated a gold electrode onto the exposed
ends of the tubes. In this way, nearly all of the nanotube shells were made
electrically active.

The Japan team find that the end-bonded nanotubes lose all resistivity at
temperatures below 12 K. According to the researchers, this is because the
TLL states are suppressed so that superconductivity can appear. Moreover,
the Tc depends on the numbers of electrically activated shells and the
physicists will now try to increase this figure by making more or all of
the shells active.



On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> No, unfortunately I'm not that well read.  But since it was suggested that
> we should be calling this something other than BEC, a 1D  Luttinger Liquid
> sounds good to me -- the 1DLL theory...
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:27 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is where Kevin got his theory!  Even if he was not
>> consciously aware of it...
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan 23, 2014
>>
>> Quantum physics in 1-D: New experiment supports long-predicted 'Luttinger
>> liquid' model
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-physics-d-long-predicted-luttinger.html
>>
>> "In 1950, Japanese Nobel Prize winner Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, followed by
>> American physicist Joaquin Mazdak Luttinger in 1963, came up with a
>> mathematical model showing that the effects of one particle on all others
>> in a one-dimensional line would be much greater than in two- or
>> three-dimensional spaces. Among quantum physicists, this model came to be
>> known as the "Luttinger liquid" state."
>>
>>
>>
>> -mark iverson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:13 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:"energy driven superconductivity" and IR coherence
>> for LENR
>>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting Kevin.
>>
>>
>>
>> This could be especially relevant if the tubes in question are shown to
>> be a composite, made with graphite fibers, or CNT.
>>
>>
>>
>> The inside of a carbon nanotube would seem to favor a single line of
>> dense hydrogen.
>>
>>
>>
>> The hydrogen may technically not need to be 1-D so much as to have an
>> extreme ratio of length to diameter.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley
>>
>>
>>
>> ***I have a theory to propose.  It could be a one dimensional BEC rather
>> than 3 dimensional.  By that, I mean that there's a BEC forming along a
>> single line of atoms (1dimensional

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Edmund Storms]

Actually Alan, this is a good idea. Tom Claytor has been slowly  
mastering production of tritium using cold fusion to the point where  
this might be a practical source. But as you point out, the excess  
energy would be a problem. :-)


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:40 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:

Maybe someone could  re-target a suitably-tuned LENR system as an  
online Tritium-generator and get some of those hot-fusion funds. Of  
course, it would need an expensive cooling system to get rid of the  
excess heat.


Just kidding, of course.

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Alan Fletcher]

Maybe someone could re-target a suitably-tuned LENR system as an online 
Tritium-generator and get some of those hot-fusion funds. Of course, it would 
need an expensive cooling system to get rid of the excess heat. 

Just kidding, of course. 

Re: [Vo]:Need suggestions on plastic detection

[fznidarsic]

Thank you Axil.  We only want to do plastic bottles.
There is a company that does this in the mid IR but I believe crushed up dirty 
bottles may confuse it.


The ratio to mid IR to blue light is really profound with the #1 soda bottles 
and the
#2 milk bottles.  I was surprised how well those cloudy milk bottles 
transmitted mid IR.
The detectors are used in motion detection and optical light and are realty 
available. I should be able to get this ratio method to work.


I am still miffed by the #3,4, and 5 bottles.


Frank

RE: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Atlanta frozen again

[Sunil Shah]

Eric Walker said:
> Here is another video of Russian drivers:> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oQ6VbVIco
> 
> These images are something else.  I can't tell whether the drivers in Russia 
> are absolutely terrible, or whether this is the situation > anywhere, and the 
> drivers in Russia just happen to have dashcams.

> 
> Eric
Absolutely terrible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

AND they happen to have dashcams.
All the more "entertaining".


  

Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

How do we make it stronger?  Vibrate a Bose condensate.  In my language,
 "The Constants of the Motion Tend Toward the Electromagnetic in a Bose
condensate that is Vibrated at a Dimensional Frequency of 1.094 megahertz
meters".
***Frank, on another thread
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89493.html

I proposed a 1dimensional BEC.  I assumed that the BEC was vibrating.  If
your theory were condensed down to 1Dimensional physics, it could be
mathematically and experimentally elegant.




On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:07 AM,  wrote:

> Thank you Fran.  Theories such as Storm's theory of cracks and Widdom
> Larson's theory are based on conventional thinking applied under an extreme
> condition.  These theories consider only the static Coulombic force and the
> static strong nuclear force.  Even mills with his exotic hydrions considers
> only the static forces.  As in the battle between Kann and Kirk;  Kirk
> defeated Kann by his three dimensional thinking.  There is another force at
> work in the nucleus.  They cannot account for the lack of high energy
> emissions.
>
>  I am an electric engineer.  The only thing I have ever done with the
> static electric field is to rub a balloon on my head and stick to to the
> wall. I have, however, worked extensively with the dynamic magnetic
> component of the electrical field.  This is second nature for an electrical
> engineer.   There is a dynamic magnetic component of the nuclear force.
>  Its called the spin orbit force.  Like the electro-magnetic force; it is
> not conserved and can increase without bound.  It tends to flip nucleons
> and induce a beta decay.  How do we make it stronger?  Vibrate a Bose
> condensate.  In my language,  "The Constants of the Motion Tend Toward the
> Electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is Vibrated at a Dimensional
> Frequency of 1.094 megahertz meters".
>
>  The motion constants are related to motion.  Motion is carried by the
> magnetic components of the static force fields.  Why that speed?  When the
> velocity of nuclear cluster equals the velocity of sound in the nucleus and
> impedance matched condition emerges.  This is the condition of the quantum
> jump.  The quantum condition of the atom emerged from an analysis of this
> speed. An extrapolation produced low level nuclear reactions.  I believe
> that is a big story and that it goes way beyond cold fusion.  It has
> produced the quantum condition as a subset of the Newtonian mechanics and
> it shows how to classically control all of the natural forces.
>
>  The solutions are simple and require only the simple harmonic motion of
> advanced high school physics.
>
>  Frank
>
>
> Frank Znidarsic
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roarty, Francis X 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 12:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation for LENR
>
>   Frank..
>
>  Re your extrapolation [snip] extrapolate and get:The technology of 
> antigravity and the technology of low energy nuclear reactions. [/snip]
>
>
>
> I not only agree but I think it is antigravity that will finally break the
> back of skepticism regarding LENR.. Like you I followed with interest the
> claims of Eugene Podkletnov and played with meisner effect in the
> environmental lab at work trying to use some liquid nitrogen and a bulk
> magnetic eraser to tickle the effect out of my very amateur experiment..  I
> think the effect in LENR will require motion to detect the gravitational
> effect but once a compact mobile method of LENR becomes available it will
> soon be discovered there are also anomalous inertial effects involved...like
> we see radioactive decay rate anomalies it is a temporal effect,  presently
> these reactors are large and stationary but I predict a portable reactor
> placed running on one side of a balance beam will significantly slow down
> the reaction to changes in weight on the opposite arm of the balance as
> opposed to changes in weight when the reactor is turned off. The gas
> becomes relativistic due to the casimir geometry and it will present
> additional opposition beyond 3d to the normal inertia of the bulk powder or
> catalyst. IMHO  this opposition will be 90 degrees from any spatial vector
> and simply slow the normal inertia like a flywheel but without a spatial
> bias. Fran
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:29 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:NASA Bushnell quote on 5-30 THz stimulation
> for LENR
>
>
>
> Forget about the cracks, hydrinos, and the like.  My Constants of the Motion
>
> theory told of this in 1998,  Now factor in the size and get the velocity 
> 1,094,000
>
> meters per second. I presented the theory at a meeting of the American Nuclear
>
> Society in 2000.  That's a long time ago.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What is the velocity 1,094,000 meters per second?  Its the velocity of sound 
> in the nucleus.
>
>
>
>
>
> What 

Re: [Vo]:Need suggestions on plastic detection

[Axil Axil]

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-9/issue-4/features/waste-sorting-a-look-at-the-separation-and-sorting-techniques-in-todayrsquos-european-market.html


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:50 PM,  wrote:

> I am working with my friend Howard Walker.  He is in the junk plastic
> business.  The plastic bottles are worth 12 cents a pound in bulk.  If
> separated into 1,2,3,4 and 5 the plastic is worth 24 cents a pound.
>
>  I found that #1 the clear coke bottle plastic if opaque to mid infrared.
>  I blocks a security lights thermal sensor.
> It transmits visible light.  This was a good find as these bottles are
> worth the most separated.  A ratio detector should work well.
>
>  I found #2 milk bottle plastic is opaque to a blue LED light.  The mid
> infrared goes right through it.
> A ratio detector should work well.
>
>  I have found no detection method for #5 semi clear plastic.  All light
> goes through it.  Darn!
> It does, however, scatter a red laser.  I am not sure it this effect can
> be employed.
>
>  They are all transparent to a UV black light.  I did not expect this!
>
>  The bottles are all smashed up and the detection technique must be
> robust.  We will use a transmission test to avoid the
> labels.  No transmission because of a label is not a condition.
>
>  They are all transparent to near IR when I check it with my video camera
> and a TV remote.  Too bad.
>
>  any ideas?
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>

[Vo]:some news on the BLP web page

[Marcus Haber]

I just stumbled upon a new entry on the "what's new" part of the BLP homepage.

 

They will have a "Presentation by Dr. Randell Mills at the twenty-first annual Groundhog Day Investment Forum, hosted by Emerald Asset Management." on february the 6th.

 

Does anyone know anything about this event? I just saw they have been there 2013 as well.

 

 

[Vo]:Need suggestions on plastic detection

[fznidarsic]

I am working with my friend Howard Walker.  He is in the junk plastic business. 
 The plastic bottles are worth 12 cents a pound in bulk.  If separated into 
1,2,3,4 and 5 the plastic is worth 24 cents a pound.


I found that #1 the clear coke bottle plastic if opaque to mid infrared.  I 
blocks a security lights thermal sensor.
It transmits visible light.  This was a good find as these bottles are worth 
the most separated.  A ratio detector should work well.


I found #2 milk bottle plastic is opaque to a blue LED light.  The mid infrared 
goes right through it.
A ratio detector should work well.


I have found no detection method for #5 semi clear plastic.  All light goes 
through it.  Darn!
It does, however, scatter a red laser.  I am not sure it this effect can be 
employed.


They are all transparent to a UV black light.  I did not expect this!


The bottles are all smashed up and the detection technique must be robust.  We 
will use a transmission test to avoid the
labels.  No transmission because of a label is not a condition.


They are all transparent to near IR when I check it with my video camera and a 
TV remote.  Too bad.


any ideas?


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Axil Axil]

The General fusion design is close to sonofusion. They setup a shock wave
in liquid lead to compress some hydrogen (D and T) in the center of the
liquid lead sphere.

They should use a heavy iconic liquid and cavatate it to produce the shock
wave. We know that this works to produce fusion; but this type of fusion is
not hot, it may be cold.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
> You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending billions
>> of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given that progress in
>> this field could be described as moderate at best would you also say
>> "enough"?
>>
>
> Yes, I would reform and refocus cancer research. It has been largely
> ineffective, according to many experts. See, for example:
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/02/07/where_do_the_millions_of_cancer_research_dollars_go_every_year.html
>
> Quote from David Chan, MD, Oncologist :
>
> "I'll be the first to admit that despite all the billions put into cancer
> research, the end results of preventing cancer and treating advanced cancer
> have been disappointing.
>
> Unlike reducing deaths from heart attacks and stroke, progress in reducing
> deaths from cancer has been disappointingly slow . . ."
>
> Chan quotes a researcher:
>
> "Simply put, we have not adequately channeled our scientific know-how,
> funding, and energy into a full exploration of the one path certain to save
> lives: prevention. That it should become the ultimate goal of cancer
> research has been recognized since the war on cancer began. When I look at
> NCI's budget request for fiscal year 2012, I'm deeply disappointed, though
> past experience tells me I shouldn't be surprised.
>
>
>
> From other sources:
>
> "Overall, cancer mortality in the United States is unchanged in the last
> 25 years and higher now than it was in 1950 (even after taking into account
> the aging population) because a rise in the number of people developing
> cancer has swamped any improvements in treatment. As recently as the mid
> 1990s, an expert trying to measure the benefits of medical care ignored
> cancer because he considered the effects of treatment negligible. ..."
>
> NCHS, Health, United States, 2003, p. 136
>
> . . . [A] task force assembled by the public health service . . . refused
> to recommend screening for lung cancer or diabetes. Even if people with
> these chronic conditions go to doctors for their problems early, most will
> continue to deteriorate."
>
> J. P. Bunker et al., "Improving Health: Measuring Effects of Medical
> Care," Milbank Quarterly 77 (1994), p. 225
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:

You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending billions
> of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given that progress in
> this field could be described as moderate at best would you also say
> "enough"?
>

Yes, I would reform and refocus cancer research. It has been largely
ineffective, according to many experts. See, for example:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/02/07/where_do_the_millions_of_cancer_research_dollars_go_every_year.html

Quote from David Chan, MD, Oncologist :

"I'll be the first to admit that despite all the billions put into cancer
research, the end results of preventing cancer and treating advanced cancer
have been disappointing.

Unlike reducing deaths from heart attacks and stroke, progress in reducing
deaths from cancer has been disappointingly slow . . ."

Chan quotes a researcher:

"Simply put, we have not adequately channeled our scientific know-how,
funding, and energy into a full exploration of the one path certain to save
lives: prevention. That it should become the ultimate goal of cancer
research has been recognized since the war on cancer began. When I look at
NCI's budget request for fiscal year 2012, I'm deeply disappointed, though
past experience tells me I shouldn't be surprised.



>From other sources:

"Overall, cancer mortality in the United States is unchanged in the last 25
years and higher now than it was in 1950 (even after taking into account
the aging population) because a rise in the number of people developing
cancer has swamped any improvements in treatment. As recently as the mid
1990s, an expert trying to measure the benefits of medical care ignored
cancer because he considered the effects of treatment negligible. ..."

NCHS, Health, United States, 2003, p. 136

. . . [A] task force assembled by the public health service . . . refused
to recommend screening for lung cancer or diabetes. Even if people with
these chronic conditions go to doctors for their problems early, most will
continue to deteriorate."

J. P. Bunker et al., "Improving Health: Measuring Effects of Medical Care,"
Milbank Quarterly 77 (1994), p. 225


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Edmund Storms]

Yes indeed, we can find many examples of the same disfunction  
operating. The difference is, cancer can be cured. Hot fusion can not  
be made practical.


Cancer suffers from the same factors that cause LENR to be rejected  
and hot fusion to be supported. As long as cancer remains uncured, a  
lot of people will continue to make a lot of money. As long as LENR  
remain unused, a lot of people will continue to make a lot of money.  
Self interest drives the system. Ignorance drives the individual.  We  
individuals are helpless unless our combined self-interest is  
expressed more forcibly.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:

You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending  
billions of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given  
that progress in this field could be described as moderate at best  
would you also say "enough"?


[m]


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of  
dollars. We are not even close to a working generator. At what point  
do we say enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at  
cold fusion for a change? Instead, they keep exploring different  
variations of hot fusion, all of which have the same basic problems.  
Remember what Einstein said about insanity.


Ed Storms

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they  
are trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing  
billions of dollars in SnapChat.



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms > wrote:
This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser  
fusion and magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can  
made by the fusion reactor so that tritium must come from another  
source, which adds greatly to the cost. In addition, the process  
generates significant radiation and radioactive products that must  
be shielded, thereby limiting its use to large installations. Also,  
the device would be more difficult to service than is a nuclear  
reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause fusion has so  
many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still being  
wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion  
has demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility  
than what is being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what  
point does rational thinking take over from the bad habits of the  
past?


Ed Storms

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:

January 31, 2014

General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion  
energy


VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When  
TED, the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in  
Vancouver this year, the city and indeed Canada will be well  
represented when General Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr.  
Michel Laberge takes the stage.


A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge  
started General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside  
Vancouver and has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the  
development of fusion technology.


Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the  
exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process  
that emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe,  
sustainable energy source for the world.


He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on  
the breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology,  
called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest  
and most economical route to a commercial application for fusion  
energy.


General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is  
uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion  
innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than  
ever to making fusion clean energy a reality.


TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the  
fastest, most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion  
energy. Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are  
supported by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital  
funds, industry leaders, and technology pioneers, including:  
Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions, Cenovus Energy  
and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.


About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a  
clean, safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither  
pollution nor greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion  
energy is fueled by deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are  
easily extracted from seawater and derived from lithium, in  
abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel to power the planet  
for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclea

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[James Bowery]

Has anyone even _tried_ to come up with objective criteria milestones for
cancer research?

Its not like you can just sit back and think these things up off the top of
your head.  I came up with the criteria for the fusion prizes by going
around to all of the proponents of alternative fusion technologies and
asking them what they considered fair.  It was surprisingly easy to get a
consensus but the problem is you have to do the leg work.

Something similar should have been done with cancer research decades ago.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending billions
> of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given that progress in
> this field could be described as moderate at best would you also say
> "enough"?
>
> [m]
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of dollars.
>> We are not even close to a working generator. At what point do we say
>> enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at cold fusion for
>> a change? Instead, they keep exploring different variations of hot fusion,
>> all of which have the same basic problems. Remember what Einstein said
>> about insanity.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
>>
>> I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are
>> trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing billions of
>> dollars in SnapChat.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and
>>> magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion
>>> reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly
>>> to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and
>>> radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to
>>> large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service
>>> than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause
>>> fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still
>>> being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has
>>> demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is
>>> being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational
>>> thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>  January 31, 2014

 General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

 Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy

 VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED,
 the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
 year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
 Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.

 A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
 General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
 has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
 technology.

 Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
 exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
 emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
 source for the world.

 He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
 breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
 Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
 economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.

 General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is
 uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion
 innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to
 making fusion clean energy a reality.

 TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

 About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,
 most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.
 Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a
 global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders,
 and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos
 Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

 About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,
 safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
 greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
 deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
 and de

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Mark Gibbs]

You could level the same charge of trying for years and spending billions
of dollars against the search for a cure for cancer. Given that progress in
this field could be described as moderate at best would you also say
"enough"?

[m]


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of dollars.
> We are not even close to a working generator. At what point do we say
> enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at cold fusion for
> a change? Instead, they keep exploring different variations of hot fusion,
> all of which have the same basic problems. Remember what Einstein said
> about insanity.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are
> trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing billions of
> dollars in SnapChat.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and
>> magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion
>> reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly
>> to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and
>> radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to
>> large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service
>> than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause
>> fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still
>> being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has
>> demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is
>> being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational
>> thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>  January 31, 2014
>>>
>>> General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference
>>>
>>> Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy
>>>
>>> VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED,
>>> the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
>>> year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
>>> Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.
>>>
>>> A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
>>> General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
>>> has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
>>> exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
>>> emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
>>> source for the world.
>>>
>>> He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
>>> breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
>>> Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
>>> economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.
>>>
>>> General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is
>>> uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion
>>> innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to
>>> making fusion clean energy a reality.
>>>
>>> TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.
>>>
>>> About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,
>>> most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.
>>> Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a
>>> global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders,
>>> and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos
>>> Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
>>>
>>> About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,
>>> safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
>>> greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
>>> deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
>>> and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel
>>> to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear
>>> fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot
>>> suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[James Bowery]

What's even more disgraceful is that a founder of the Tokamak program came
out in support of prize awards for achievement of objective criteria:

http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

That legislation called only for $100M per milestone.

Imagine if the $70B that has been sunk into fusion had been placed in those
prizes.

Its not like prize awards are a radical idea:

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

Indeed, it is arguably the case that the British Empire would never have
arisen without them.



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> Yes, it's a disgrace to see the lack of investment in LENR.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of dollars.
>> We are not even close to a working generator. At what point do we say
>> enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at cold fusion for
>> a change? Instead, they keep exploring different variations of hot fusion,
>> all of which have the same basic problems. Remember what Einstein said
>> about insanity.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
>>
>> I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are
>> trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing billions of
>> dollars in SnapChat.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and
>>> magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion
>>> reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly
>>> to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and
>>> radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to
>>> large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service
>>> than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause
>>> fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still
>>> being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has
>>> demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is
>>> being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational
>>> thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>  January 31, 2014

 General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

 Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy

 VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED,
 the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
 year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
 Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.

 A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
 General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
 has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
 technology.

 Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
 exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
 emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
 source for the world.

 He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
 breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
 Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
 economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.

 General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is
 uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion
 innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to
 making fusion clean energy a reality.

 TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

 About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,
 most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.
 Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a
 global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders,
 and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos
 Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

 About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,
 safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
 greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
 deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
 and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel
 to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear
 fission reactors, 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[ChemE Stewart]

That is a good description.

Now let's say there is a vacuum component in our atmosphere along with the
Higgs field. If you gradually add energy to it 24/7 thru megawatts
of pulsed microwave doppler EMF, would this field not discharge that energy
to the Earth at some point, possibly increasing ionization and decay below,
like my data is showing around these radars?  Or are you military and don't
want to comment?

On Friday, January 31, 2014, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The vacuum is a spin net liquid in which subatomic particles of all
> varieties  fleetingly pop into being and then are destroyed in a very short
> time.
>
> Think of these particles as a pair of counter rotating energy vortexes
> with the vortex pair connected by a thin channel.
>
> The vacuum is filled by tiny bits of transient energy with randomly
> oriented quantum's of spins. Just like when light moves from atom to atom
> in matter, it is on these bits of coherent counter rotating bits of energy
> and there spin that photons of EMF jump from bit to bit in rapid succession
> as the EMF moves through the vacuum not always in a straight line.
>
> When a metal plate intercepts some of these spins, an attractive or
> repulsive force is generated between the plates.
>
> It is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute
> the field, and generate a net force--either an attraction or a repulsion
> depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the
> Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting
> with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms
> of the zero-point energy of a quantized vacuum field in the intervening
> space between the objects.
>
> A spin net liquid is the only medium that EMF can use as a transport
> medium and it is consistent with the Maxwell equations.
>
> http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html
>
> In this theory of the universe where particles are energy vortexes, light
> and electrons are the same and other types of matter spring from the nature
> of the spin net liquid.
>
> One reason why radioactivity is affected by LENR is because the spin net
> liquid of the vacuum is affected by the huge magnetic spins produced by
> LENR hotspots. LENR reactions can increase the rate of radioactive decay
> through modifying the virtual particle nature of the vacuum.
>
> The magnetic field of the sun can also effect the decay of radioactive
> isotopes through vacuum modification and this is been seen experimentally
> during intense sun spot activity.
>
> These coherent bits of energy also form the superconducting medium of the
> Higgs field whose resistive nature gives mass to matter.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I have a question regarding the Casimir effect that someone might be able
> to assist me in answering.  There is discussion of how this effect is able
> to squeeze the hydrogen atom into one of the fractional states and I wonder
> why this same force does not push apart the atoms or whatever else may be
> generating that force.  Please offer an explanation as to why the hydrogen
> is squeezed but the surrounding atoms are not pushed back in an equal and
> opposite manner.
>
> Are we to believe that the Casimir force acts in only one direction and in
> violation to Newton's laws?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Roarty, Francis X 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 12:55 pm
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>
>   Also if each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the
> role of the so called catalyst  it would be as part of "casimir" group not
> individually - and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving gas atom it will
> experience changes in this field - dynamic casimir effect.  I am not even
> sure that transmutation would effect that field as long as the element
> remains metal and does not significantly change the local geometry the
> casimir force should remain unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales
> where the same HUP responsible for the random motion of the gas atoms at
> the lower scale can be unbalanced and accumulated at a higher scale by the
> Ni. [1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions with different values of casimir
> force.
> Fran
>
>  *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>
> Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to
> climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard
> getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily?
> Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role
> of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni
> to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is
> not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else.

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Yes, it's a disgrace to see the lack of investment in LENR.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of dollars.
> We are not even close to a working generator. At what point do we say
> enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at cold fusion for
> a change? Instead, they keep exploring different variations of hot fusion,
> all of which have the same basic problems. Remember what Einstein said
> about insanity.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are
> trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing billions of
> dollars in SnapChat.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and
>> magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion
>> reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly
>> to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and
>> radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to
>> large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service
>> than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause
>> fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still
>> being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has
>> demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is
>> being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational
>> thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>  January 31, 2014
>>>
>>> General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference
>>>
>>> Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy
>>>
>>> VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED,
>>> the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
>>> year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
>>> Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.
>>>
>>> A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
>>> General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
>>> has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
>>> exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
>>> emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
>>> source for the world.
>>>
>>> He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
>>> breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
>>> Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
>>> economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.
>>>
>>> General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is
>>> uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion
>>> innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to
>>> making fusion clean energy a reality.
>>>
>>> TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.
>>>
>>> About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,
>>> most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.
>>> Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a
>>> global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders,
>>> and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos
>>> Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
>>>
>>> About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,
>>> safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
>>> greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
>>> deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
>>> and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel
>>> to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear
>>> fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot
>>> suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Edmund Storms]

Blaze, they tried for 70 years and have spent tens of billion of  
dollars. We are not even close to a working generator. At what point  
do we say enough - please try something else. Why not take a look at  
cold fusion for a change? Instead, they keep exploring different  
variations of hot fusion, all of which have the same basic problems.  
Remember what Einstein said about insanity.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:

I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are  
trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing  
billions of dollars in SnapChat.



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion  
and magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by  
the fusion reactor so that tritium must come from another source,  
which adds greatly to the cost. In addition, the process generates  
significant radiation and radioactive products that must be  
shielded, thereby limiting its use to large installations. Also, the  
device would be more difficult to service than is a nuclear reactor,  
as ITER has discovered. This method to cause fusion has so many  
limitations, a rational person asks why is money still being wasted?  
This question is even more important now that cold fusion has  
demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than  
what is being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point  
does rational thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?


Ed Storms

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:

January 31, 2014

General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion  
energy


VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When  
TED, the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in  
Vancouver this year, the city and indeed Canada will be well  
represented when General Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr.  
Michel Laberge takes the stage.


A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge  
started General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside  
Vancouver and has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the  
development of fusion technology.


Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the  
exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process  
that emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe,  
sustainable energy source for the world.


He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on  
the breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology,  
called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and  
most economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.


General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is  
uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion  
innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever  
to making fusion clean energy a reality.


TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,  
most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.  
Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported  
by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds,  
industry leaders, and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix  
Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and  
Sustainable Development Technology Canada.


About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,  
safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution  
nor greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is  
fueled by deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted  
from seawater and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is  
enough fusion fuel to power the planet for hundreds of millions of  
years. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, fusion energy does not  
require uranium as fuel, cannot suffer from meltdowns and does not  
produce long-lived radioactive wastes.

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I don't get it.  Why whinge like that?   I think it's great they are
trying.  Let them take their best shot.  Better than investing billions of
dollars in SnapChat.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion and
> magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by the fusion
> reactor so that tritium must come from another source, which adds greatly
> to the cost. In addition, the process generates significant radiation and
> radioactive products that must be shielded, thereby limiting its use to
> large installations. Also, the device would be more difficult to service
> than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER has discovered. This method to cause
> fusion has so many limitations, a rational person asks why is money still
> being wasted? This question is even more important now that cold fusion has
> demonstrated a commercial generator having more plausibility than what is
> being shown to be the case using hot fusion. At what point does rational
> thinking take over from the bad habits of the past?
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:
>
>  January 31, 2014
>>
>> General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference
>>
>> Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy
>>
>> VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED,
>> the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
>> year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
>> Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.
>>
>> A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
>> General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
>> has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
>> technology.
>>
>> Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
>> exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
>> emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
>> source for the world.
>>
>> He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
>> breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
>> Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
>> economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.
>>
>> General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is
>> uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion
>> innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever to
>> making fusion clean energy a reality.
>>
>> TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.
>>
>> About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest, most
>> practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy. Established in
>> 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a global syndicate
>> of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders, and technology
>> pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions,
>> Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
>>
>> About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean, safe
>> and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
>> greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
>> deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
>> and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel
>> to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear
>> fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot
>> suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.
>>
>>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Axil Axil]

The vacuum is a spin net liquid in which subatomic particles of all
varieties  fleetingly pop into being and then are destroyed in a very short
time.

Think of these particles as a pair of counter rotating energy vortexes with
the vortex pair connected by a thin channel.

The vacuum is filled by tiny bits of transient energy with randomly
oriented quantum's of spins. Just like when light moves from atom to atom
in matter, it is on these bits of coherent counter rotating bits of energy
and there spin that photons of EMF jump from bit to bit in rapid succession
as the EMF moves through the vacuum not always in a straight line.

When a metal plate intercepts some of these spins, an attractive or
repulsive force is generated between the plates.

It is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute
the field, and generate a net force--either an attraction or a repulsion
depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the
Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting
with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms
of the zero-point energy of a quantized vacuum field in the intervening
space between the objects.

A spin net liquid is the only medium that EMF can use as a transport medium
and it is consistent with the Maxwell equations.

http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html

In this theory of the universe where particles are energy vortexes, light
and electrons are the same and other types of matter spring from the nature
of the spin net liquid.

One reason why radioactivity is affected by LENR is because the spin net
liquid of the vacuum is affected by the huge magnetic spins produced by
LENR hotspots. LENR reactions can increase the rate of radioactive decay
through modifying the virtual particle nature of the vacuum.

The magnetic field of the sun can also effect the decay of radioactive
isotopes through vacuum modification and this is been seen experimentally
during intense sun spot activity.

These coherent bits of energy also form the superconducting medium of the
Higgs field whose resistive nature gives mass to matter.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:24 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I have a question regarding the Casimir effect that someone might be able
> to assist me in answering.  There is discussion of how this effect is able
> to squeeze the hydrogen atom into one of the fractional states and I wonder
> why this same force does not push apart the atoms or whatever else may be
> generating that force.  Please offer an explanation as to why the hydrogen
> is squeezed but the surrounding atoms are not pushed back in an equal and
> opposite manner.
>
> Are we to believe that the Casimir force acts in only one direction and in
> violation to Newton's laws?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Roarty, Francis X 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 12:55 pm
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>
>   Also if each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the
> role of the so called catalyst  it would be as part of "casimir" group not
> individually - and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving gas atom it will
> experience changes in this field - dynamic casimir effect.  I am not even
> sure that transmutation would effect that field as long as the element
> remains metal and does not significantly change the local geometry the
> casimir force should remain unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales
> where the same HUP responsible for the random motion of the gas atoms at
> the lower scale can be unbalanced and accumulated at a higher scale by the
> Ni. [1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions with different values of casimir
> force.
> Fran
>
>  *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>
> Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to
> climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard
> getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily?
> Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role
> of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni
> to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is
> not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small
> particle of Ni would have to contain the magic catalyst and a large
> fraction of the Ni would have to be converted to Cu in order to account for
> the energy being claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please
> consider the obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure
> imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi
> even has withdrawn this claim.
>
>  Ed Storms
>  On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
>
>
>
>   Just saw this:
>
> http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/

Re: [Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Edmund Storms]

This claim suffers from the same limitations that haunt laser fusion  
and magnetic bubble fusion (ITER). Insufficient tritium can made by  
the fusion reactor so that tritium must come from another source,  
which adds greatly to the cost. In addition, the process generates  
significant radiation and radioactive products that must be shielded,  
thereby limiting its use to large installations. Also, the device  
would be more difficult to service than is a nuclear reactor, as ITER  
has discovered. This method to cause fusion has so many limitations, a  
rational person asks why is money still being wasted? This question is  
even more important now that cold fusion has demonstrated a commercial  
generator having more plausibility than what is being shown to be the  
case using hot fusion. At what point does rational thinking take over  
from the bad habits of the past?


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Mark Gibbs wrote:


January 31, 2014

General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion  
energy


VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When  
TED, the world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in  
Vancouver this year, the city and indeed Canada will be well  
represented when General Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr.  
Michel Laberge takes the stage.


A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge  
started General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside  
Vancouver and has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the  
development of fusion technology.


Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the  
exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process  
that emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe,  
sustainable energy source for the world.


He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on  
the breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology,  
called Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and  
most economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.


General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is  
uniquely positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion  
innovation, and how scientists around the world are closer than ever  
to making fusion clean energy a reality.


TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest,  
most practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy.  
Established in 2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported  
by a global syndicate of leading energy venture capital funds,  
industry leaders, and technology pioneers, including: Chrysalix  
Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions, Cenovus Energy and  
Sustainable Development Technology Canada.


About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean,  
safe and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution  
nor greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is  
fueled by deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted  
from seawater and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is  
enough fusion fuel to power the planet for hundreds of millions of  
years. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, fusion energy does not  
require uranium as fuel, cannot suffer from meltdowns and does not  
produce long-lived radioactive wastes.

[Vo]:General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

[Mark Gibbs]

January 31, 2014

General Fusion Founder to Speak at TED Conference

Chief Scientist to highlight progress on much-anticipated fusion energy

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jan. 31, 2014) - When TED, the
world's primary idea exchange, moves to its new home in Vancouver this
year, the city and indeed Canada will be well represented when General
Fusion founder and Chief Scientist Dr. Michel Laberge takes the stage.

A plasma physicist with an entrepreneurial streak, Dr. Laberge started
General Fusion in 2002 in an abandoned gas station outside Vancouver and
has helped it grow into a pioneering force in the development of fusion
technology.

Dr. Laberge takes the TED stage on March 18, 2014 to talk about the
exciting progress in the development of fusion energy - the process that
emulates the power of the sun and creates a clean, safe, sustainable energy
source for the world.

He will discuss fusion technologies around the world and focus on the
breakthrough vision that drives General Fusion. The technology, called
Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF), could lead to the fastest and most
economical route to a commercial application for fusion energy.

General Fusion has become a world leader on MTF and Dr. Laberge is uniquely
positioned to tell the story of its contribution to fusion innovation, and
how scientists around the world are closer than ever to making fusion clean
energy a reality.

TED takes place in Vancouver from March 17-21, 2014.

About General Fusion Inc.: General Fusion is developing the fastest, most
practical, and lowest cost path to commercial fusion energy. Established in
2002, the company and its 60 employees are supported by a global syndicate
of leading energy venture capital funds, industry leaders, and technology
pioneers, including: Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Bezos Expeditions,
Cenovus Energy and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

About fusion energy: Fusion energy holds immense promise as a clean, safe
and abundant energy source. Fusion generates neither pollution nor
greenhouse gases that drive climate change. Fusion energy is fueled by
deuterium and tritium isotopes, which are easily extracted from seawater
and derived from lithium, in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel
to power the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Unlike nuclear
fission reactors, fusion energy does not require uranium as fuel, cannot
suffer from meltdowns and does not produce long-lived radioactive wastes.

Re: [Vo]:Faster than speeding Bull__it

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Jones Beene" 
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:25:46 AM

> Whoa. 24 hour run ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_run

Doesn't have to be continuous, but the guy who runs furthest in 24 hours wins.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Edmund Storms]

Dave, I personally believe the Casimir does not exist. Its effects are  
logically inconsistent with what is observed, as you note as one of  
many examples. I believe the force attributed to Casimir is poorly  
understood chemical interaction. Physics keeps it alive only because  
it fits a theory.  Consequently, it has no relationship to LENR.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:24 PM, David Roberson wrote:

I have a question regarding the Casimir effect that someone might be  
able to assist me in answering.  There is discussion of how this  
effect is able to squeeze the hydrogen atom into one of the  
fractional states and I wonder why this same force does not push  
apart the atoms or whatever else may be generating that force.   
Please offer an explanation as to why the hydrogen is squeezed but  
the surrounding atoms are not pushed back in an equal and opposite  
manner.


Are we to believe that the Casimir force acts in only one direction  
and in violation to Newton's laws?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 12:55 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

Also if each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience  
the role of the so called catalyst  it would be as part of “casimir”  
group not individually - and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving  
gas atom it will experience changes in this field – dynamic casimir  
effect.  I am not even sure that transmutation would effect that  
field as long as the element remains metal and does not  
significantly change the local geometry the casimir force should  
remain unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales where the same  
HUP responsible for the random motion of the gas atoms at the lower  
scale can be unbalanced and accumulated at a higher scale by the Ni.  
[1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions with different values of  
casimir force.

Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has  
to climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how  
hard getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome  
so easily? Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to  
experience the role of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst  
would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was converted to Cu because  
apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to copper or  
apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have  
to contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would  
have to be converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being  
claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please consider the  
obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure imagination?  
In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi even has  
withdrawn this claim.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory  
for the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral  
wrt the Ni atom where I would say they are relativistic and held  
this way by the bulk of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic  
space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from translating back to  
normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via random  
motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the   
dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate  
and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such that the  
fractional atom doesn’t have opportunity to slip back into normal  
ground state anywhere in the surrounding region… accumulating  
hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to return to normal after  
having left the geometry that caused their condition.

Fran

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[David Roberson]

I have a question regarding the Casimir effect that someone might be able to 
assist me in answering.  There is discussion of how this effect is able to 
squeeze the hydrogen atom into one of the fractional states and I wonder why 
this same force does not push apart the atoms or whatever else may be 
generating that force.  Please offer an explanation as to why the hydrogen is 
squeezed but the surrounding atoms are not pushed back in an equal and opposite 
manner.

Are we to believe that the Casimir force acts in only one direction and in 
violation to Newton's laws?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jan 31, 2014 12:55 pm
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR



Also ifeach Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of 
the so called catalyst  it would be as part of “casimir” group not individually 
- and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving gas atom it will experience changes 
in this field – dynamic casimir effect.  I am not even sure that transmutation 
would effect that field as long as the element remains metal and does not 
significantly change the local geometry the casimir force should remain 
unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales where the same HUP responsible 
for the random motion of the gas atoms at the lower scale can be unbalanced and 
accumulated at a higher scale by the Ni. [1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions 
with different values of casimir force.
Fran

 

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

 
Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to climb 
over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard getting over a 
change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily? Second, each Ni 
nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of the so called 
catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was 
converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to 
copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have to 
contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would have to be 
converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being claimed. Common sense 
is violated! Can people please consider the obvious and necessary consequences 
before applying pure imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is 
produced. Rossi even has withdrawn this claim. 

 

Ed Storms

On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:





 

 


Just saw this:


http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/


 


pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png

 

 

I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for the 
ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni atom where 
I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk of loaded gas 
occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from 
translating back to normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via 
random motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the  
dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate and may be 
why this effect requires heavy loading such that the fractional atom doesn’t 
have opportunity to slip back into normal ground state anywhere in the 
surrounding region… accumulating hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to 
return to normal after having left the geometry that caused their condition.

Fran



 

Re: [Vo]:Another breakthrough rejected at first

[Axil Axil]

Lise Meitner,  (7 November 1878 - 27 October 1968) was an Austrian, later
Swedish, physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics.

Meitner  discovered nuclear fission of uranium, an achievement for which
her colleague Otto Hahn was awarded the Nobel Prize. Meitner is often
mentioned as one of the most glaring examples of women's scientific
achievement overlooked by the Nobel committee. A 1997 Physics Today study
concluded that Meitner's omission was "a rare instance in which personal
negative opinions apparently led to the exclusion of a deserving scientist"
from the Nobel. Element 109, meitnerium, is named in her honor.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> NHK's 7 o'clock news opened with a long interview with Dr. Obokata. It was
> full of high praise, yet dreadfully sexist. It is hard to believe they
> could be so obnoxious in the 21st century. They were astounded that she
> likes to wear nice clothes and that she is just an "ordinary girl."
>
> She said that during the long years of rejection she often cried at night,
> which may have contributed to the sexism. She is honest, anyway. She seems
> like a nice person, especially for someone from Hvard. (Speaking from
> my own bias: you can always tell a Harvard man, but you cannot tell him
> much.)
>
> CNN and others reported this, ascribing the research to her co-author
> Vacanti instead of her. I complained.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Sven Kullander dies

[Jed Rothwell]

Prof. emeritus Sven Kullander of Uppsala University died on January 28,
2014 at age 78. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Kullander_(physicist)

He was one of the people who tested Rossi's device.

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Edmund Storms]

But Fran,  why introduce concepts have have very little support in  
conventional science and that create logical inconsistency and  
conflict with what is actually observed? The LENR phenomenon follows  
all the rules we have accepted in science. Why introduce new ideas  
that have no proof and no way to test. Obviously some novel ideas are  
required, but why use the proposed Ni+p=Cu reaction as an example?  
This reaction has absolutely no support. Why not follow paths that are  
based on what is known and only deviate when the path is blocked?  
Sorry, but I see no point in discussing an idea that has no  
relationship to what is known to occur or even present in the  
materials. The phenomenon is difficult enough to understand.


Ed


On Jan 31, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

Yes, Ed it sounds strange but my position has always been based on a  
caveat to COE that says random motion of gas can never be  
exploited.. IMHO these gas atoms are translated via the Ni geometry  
and will normally return to ground state unexploited as their local   
geometry changes with random motion, the caveat I am suggesting   
becomes an option when we heavily load the Ni geometry with gas such  
that the fractional h atoms exiting the geometry do not have the  
room to return to normal  ground state which by itself still gains  
you nothing but which opens the door for all these different  
theories by accumulating these fractional atoms seeking to return to  
ground state. I am keeping an open mind to ALL the various theories  
for energy creation but my reason for promoting Arto’s theory was  
wrt his perspective on Casimir geometry and the way he illustrates  
the field turning to propel the gas  atoms down into these smaller  
regions where they appear to be lower than ground state.. although  
not using the same language as I it appears he is coming to the same  
conclusions as to the originating source of the energy.. I am not  
too fond of the “neutral atoms”  he is suggesting but I think he has  
a better handle than most on what is setting the stage.

Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has  
to climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how  
hard getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome  
so easily? Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to  
experience the role of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst  
would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was converted to Cu because  
apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to copper or  
apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have  
to contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would  
have to be converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being  
claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please consider the  
obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure imagination?  
In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi even has  
withdrawn this claim.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory  
for the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral  
wrt the Ni atom where I would say they are relativistic and held  
this way by the bulk of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic  
space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from translating back to  
normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via random  
motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the   
dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate  
and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such that the  
fractional atom doesn’t have opportunity to slip back into normal  
ground state anywhere in the surrounding region… accumulating  
hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to return to normal after  
having left the geometry that caused their condition.

Fran

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Axil Axil]

reference:

http://antapex.org/it_15.pdf

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_1.pdf


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> *Fran, I think you might want to look into negative energy production.*
>
> *In a previous post titled "squeezed light". I have explained that the NAE
> produces squeezed light based on the up and down shifting of light
> frequencies seen in the photons constrained in an optical cavity.*
>
>
>
> *Squeezed light is one of the mechanisms that are cited as the origin for
> negative energy production. This zone of negative energy is a volume where
> vacuum energy is reduced to a value that lower than is typically found in
> the ordinary space and the Casmir force is reduced or completely removed.*
>
>
>
> *In this volume, light may exceed its constant value because in this zone
> the electrical and magnetic properties of the vacuum are reduced, and a
> space time worm hole may develop. I am just following the dots.*
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>  Yes, Ed it sounds strange but my position has always been based on a
>> caveat to COE that says random motion of gas can never be exploited.. IMHO
>> these gas atoms are translated via the Ni geometry and will normally return
>> to ground state unexploited as their local  geometry changes with random
>> motion, the caveat I am suggesting  becomes an option when we heavily load
>> the Ni geometry with gas such that the fractional h atoms exiting the
>> geometry do not have the room to return to normal  ground state which by
>> itself still gains you nothing but which opens the door for all these
>> different theories by accumulating these fractional atoms seeking to return
>> to ground state. I am keeping an open mind to ALL the various theories for
>> energy creation but my reason for promoting Arto's theory was wrt his
>> perspective on Casimir geometry and the way he illustrates the field
>> turning to propel the gas  atoms down into these smaller regions where they
>> appear to be lower than ground state.. although not using the same language
>> as I it appears he is coming to the same conclusions as to the originating
>> source of the energy.. I am not too fond of the "neutral atoms"  he is
>> suggesting but I think he has a better handle than most on what is setting
>> the stage.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>>
>>
>>
>> Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to
>> climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard
>> getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily?
>> Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role
>> of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni
>> to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is
>> not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small
>> particle of Ni would have to contain the magic catalyst and a large
>> fraction of the Ni would have to be converted to Cu in order to account for
>> the energy being claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please
>> consider the obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure
>> imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi
>> even has withdrawn this claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Just saw this:
>>
>>
>> http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/
>>
>>
>>
>> pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for
>> the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni
>> atom where I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk
>> of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the
>> fractional hydrogen from translating back to normal as the suppressing
>> geometry is  left behind via random motion ..this pressure then discounts
>> the barrier and allows the  dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on
>> temporal coordinate and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such
>> that the fractional atom doesn't have opportunity to slip back into normal
>> ground state anywhere in the surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that
>> are denied the opportunity to return to normal after having left the
>> geometry that caused their condition.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Roarty, Francis X]

Also if each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of 
the so called catalyst  it would be as part of "casimir" group not individually 
- and as the tapestry changes wrt a moving gas atom it will experience changes 
in this field - dynamic casimir effect.  I am not even sure that transmutation 
would effect that field as long as the element remains metal and does not 
significantly change the local geometry the casimir force should remain 
unchanged.. IMHO it is a difference of scales where the same HUP responsible 
for the random motion of the gas atoms at the lower scale can be unbalanced and 
accumulated at a higher scale by the Ni. [1/plate spacing ^3] to form regions 
with different values of casimir force.
Fran

From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to climb 
over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard getting over a 
change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily? Second, each Ni 
nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of the so called 
catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was 
converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to 
copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have to 
contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would have to be 
converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being claimed. Common sense 
is violated! Can people please consider the obvious and necessary consequences 
before applying pure imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is 
produced. Rossi even has withdrawn this claim.

Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for the 
ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni atom where 
I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk of loaded gas 
occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from 
translating back to normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via 
random motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the  
dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate and may be 
why this effect requires heavy loading such that the fractional atom doesn't 
have opportunity to slip back into normal ground state anywhere in the 
surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to 
return to normal after having left the geometry that caused their condition.
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Axil Axil]

*Fran, I think you might want to look into negative energy production.*

*In a previous post titled "squeezed light". I have explained that the NAE
produces squeezed light based on the up and down shifting of light
frequencies seen in the photons constrained in an optical cavity.*



*Squeezed light is one of the mechanisms that are cited as the origin for
negative energy production. This zone of negative energy is a volume where
vacuum energy is reduced to a value that lower than is typically found in
the ordinary space and the Casmir force is reduced or completely removed.*



*In this volume, light may exceed its constant value because in this zone
the electrical and magnetic properties of the vacuum are reduced, and a
space time worm hole may develop. I am just following the dots.*




On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

>  Yes, Ed it sounds strange but my position has always been based on a
> caveat to COE that says random motion of gas can never be exploited.. IMHO
> these gas atoms are translated via the Ni geometry and will normally return
> to ground state unexploited as their local  geometry changes with random
> motion, the caveat I am suggesting  becomes an option when we heavily load
> the Ni geometry with gas such that the fractional h atoms exiting the
> geometry do not have the room to return to normal  ground state which by
> itself still gains you nothing but which opens the door for all these
> different theories by accumulating these fractional atoms seeking to return
> to ground state. I am keeping an open mind to ALL the various theories for
> energy creation but my reason for promoting Arto's theory was wrt his
> perspective on Casimir geometry and the way he illustrates the field
> turning to propel the gas  atoms down into these smaller regions where they
> appear to be lower than ground state.. although not using the same language
> as I it appears he is coming to the same conclusions as to the originating
> source of the energy.. I am not too fond of the "neutral atoms"  he is
> suggesting but I think he has a better handle than most on what is setting
> the stage.
>
> Fran
>
> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR
>
>
>
> Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to
> climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard
> getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily?
> Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role
> of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni
> to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is
> not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small
> particle of Ni would have to contain the magic catalyst and a large
> fraction of the Ni would have to be converted to Cu in order to account for
> the energy being claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please
> consider the obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure
> imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi
> even has withdrawn this claim.
>
>
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just saw this:
>
>
> http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/
>
>
>
> pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png
>
>
>
>
>
> I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for
> the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni
> atom where I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk
> of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the
> fractional hydrogen from translating back to normal as the suppressing
> geometry is  left behind via random motion ..this pressure then discounts
> the barrier and allows the  dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on
> temporal coordinate and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such
> that the fractional atom doesn't have opportunity to slip back into normal
> ground state anywhere in the surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that
> are denied the opportunity to return to normal after having left the
> geometry that caused their condition.
>
> Fran
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Bob Higgins]

First of all, the diagram is preposterous on the surface.  He claims "1 MJ"
in a beta reaction.  Since one J = 6E12 MeV, the "1 MJ" would be 6E18 MeV
of energy in the beta - preposterous.

But, lets presume it is a typo and what he meant to say was 1 MeV instead
of 1 MJ in the beta.  Of course, beta emission is accompanied by large
statistical variation due to the neutrino that carries away random amounts
of the energy.  But, let's say that some of the beta particles are nearly 1
MeV.  When these beta particles strike the Ni or any of the walls of the
apparatus, they would create a very high energy bremsstrahlung spectrum
that would be easily detectable outside the apparatus - wouldn't they?

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to
> climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard
> getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily?
> Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role
> of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni
> to Ni as each was converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is
> not able to add H to copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small
> particle of Ni would have to contain the magic catalyst and a large
> fraction of the Ni would have to be converted to Cu in order to account for
> the energy being claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please
> consider the obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure
> imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi
> even has withdrawn this claim.
>
> Ed Storms
>


> On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
> Just saw this:
>
> http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/
>
> pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png
>
> I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for
> the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni
> atom where I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk
> of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the
> fractional hydrogen from translating back to normal as the suppressing
> geometry is  left behind via random motion ..this pressure then discounts
> the barrier and allows the  dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on
> temporal coordinate and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such
> that the fractional atom doesn't have opportunity to slip back into normal
> ground state anywhere in the surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that
> are denied the opportunity to return to normal after having left the
> geometry that caused their condition.
> Fran
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Roarty, Francis X]

Yes, Ed it sounds strange but my position has always been based on a caveat to 
COE that says random motion of gas can never be exploited.. IMHO these gas 
atoms are translated via the Ni geometry and will normally return to ground 
state unexploited as their local  geometry changes with random motion, the 
caveat I am suggesting  becomes an option when we heavily load the Ni geometry 
with gas such that the fractional h atoms exiting the geometry do not have the 
room to return to normal  ground state which by itself still gains you nothing 
but which opens the door for all these different theories by accumulating these 
fractional atoms seeking to return to ground state. I am keeping an open mind 
to ALL the various theories for energy creation but my reason for promoting 
Arto's theory was wrt his perspective on Casimir geometry and the way he 
illustrates the field turning to propel the gas  atoms down into these smaller 
regions where they appear to be lower than ground state.. although not using 
the same language as I it appears he is coming to the same conclusions as to 
the originating source of the energy.. I am not too fond of the "neutral atoms" 
 he is suggesting but I think he has a better handle than most on what is 
setting the stage.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to climb 
over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard getting over a 
change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so easily? Second, each Ni 
nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to experience the role of the so called 
catalyst. This magic catalyst would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was 
converted to Cu because apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to 
copper or apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have to 
contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would have to be 
converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being claimed. Common sense 
is violated! Can people please consider the obvious and necessary consequences 
before applying pure imagination? In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is 
produced. Rossi even has withdrawn this claim.

Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for the 
ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni atom where 
I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk of loaded gas 
occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from 
translating back to normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via 
random motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the  
dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate and may be 
why this effect requires heavy loading such that the fractional atom doesn't 
have opportunity to slip back into normal ground state anywhere in the 
surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to 
return to normal after having left the geometry that caused their condition.
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Faster than speeding Bull__it

[ChemE Stewart]

Hey Guys,

I was working from home yesterday in Atlanta (my truck was still on the
side of the road on a downhill grade with ice) and I got my 11 year year
old to help me prove that Hurricane Sandy bent the universe, at least a
little bit...

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/01/30/physorcistorigamiart-say-5-times-fast/

Stewart




On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Well its Friday, vorticians, and you need a smile for TGIF - despite
> whatever bad weather you may face today. Just be glad that you do not have
> to run through Georgia slush until this time tomorrow.
>
> Maybe you knew this. I did not. But according to AR, he excelled in sports
> at a young age and was Italian road-running champion in 1970, and in 1969
> held the Junior World Record for the 24-hour run.
>
> Whoa. 24 hour run ??
>
> Is this Rossi-speak for a 2.4 hour run, or what?
>
> The guy is either time-challenged, decimal challenged, or fitter than
> Superman. I mean, the race cars at Le Mans run for 24 hours, but each of
> them burns through almost a ton of fuel during that time ... and running on
> foot for a full day, when Nike's were not yet invented - well, that
> stretches one's credulity almost as much as LENR, no?
>
> Well, maybe it's no worse that asking an audience to extrapolate a "pop" of
> Megawatts of apparent power into continuous energy of MW-hrs.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Edmund Storms]

Fran, do you realize how strange this explanation sounds? The H has to  
climb over a Coulomb barrier having a charge of 28. We know how hard  
getting over a change of 1 is, so how is this barrier overcome so  
easily? Second, each Ni nucleus in the sea of Ni would have to  
experience the role of the so called catalyst. This magic catalyst  
would have to move from Ni to Ni as each was converted to Cu because  
apparently the magic catalyst is not able to add H to copper or  
apparently to any thing else. Each small particle of Ni would have to  
contain the magic catalyst and a large fraction of the Ni would have  
to be converted to Cu in order to account for the energy being  
claimed. Common sense is violated! Can people please consider the  
obvious and necessary consequences before applying pure imagination?  
In addition, we have no evidence that Cu is produced. Rossi even has  
withdrawn this claim.


Ed Storms
On Jan 31, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:




Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory  
for the ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral  
wrt the Ni atom where I would say they are relativistic and held  
this way by the bulk of loaded gas occupying the unrelativistic  
space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from translating back to  
normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via random  
motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the   
dilated atom to slip “behind” the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate  
and may be why this effect requires heavy loading such that the  
fractional atom doesn’t have opportunity to slip back into normal  
ground state anywhere in the surrounding region… accumulating  
hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to return to normal after  
having left the geometry that caused their condition.

Fran

[Vo]:Higgs and LENR

[Roarty, Francis X]

Just saw this:
http://ecatsuomi.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/arto-lauri-i-will-take-on-how-the-e-cat-works/

pix http://ecatsuomi.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/arto_lauri_proposal1.png


I think Arto is very close if not exactly on target with this theory for the 
ecat.. IMHO he defines the fractional hydrogen as neutral wrt the Ni atom where 
I would say they are relativistic and held this way by the bulk of loaded gas 
occupying the unrelativistic space that prevents the fractional hydrogen from 
translating back to normal as the suppressing geometry is  left behind via 
random motion ..this pressure then discounts the barrier and allows the  
dilated atom to slip "behind" the Ni atom  on temporal coordinate and may be 
why this effect requires heavy loading such that the fractional atom doesn't 
have opportunity to slip back into normal ground state anywhere in the 
surrounding region... accumulating hydrinos that are denied the opportunity to 
return to normal after having left the geometry that caused their condition.
Fran

[Vo]:Faster than speeding Bull__it

[Jones Beene]

Well its Friday, vorticians, and you need a smile for TGIF - despite
whatever bad weather you may face today. Just be glad that you do not have
to run through Georgia slush until this time tomorrow.

Maybe you knew this. I did not. But according to AR, he excelled in sports
at a young age and was Italian road-running champion in 1970, and in 1969
held the Junior World Record for the 24-hour run.

Whoa. 24 hour run ??

Is this Rossi-speak for a 2.4 hour run, or what?

The guy is either time-challenged, decimal challenged, or fitter than
Superman. I mean, the race cars at Le Mans run for 24 hours, but each of
them burns through almost a ton of fuel during that time ... and running on
foot for a full day, when Nike's were not yet invented - well, that
stretches one's credulity almost as much as LENR, no? 

Well, maybe it's no worse that asking an audience to extrapolate a "pop" of
Megawatts of apparent power into continuous energy of MW-hrs.


<>

Re: [Vo]:Another breakthrough rejected at first

[Jed Rothwell]

NHK's 7 o'clock news opened with a long interview with Dr. Obokata. It was
full of high praise, yet dreadfully sexist. It is hard to believe they
could be so obnoxious in the 21st century. They were astounded that she
likes to wear nice clothes and that she is just an "ordinary girl."

She said that during the long years of rejection she often cried at night,
which may have contributed to the sexism. She is honest, anyway. She seems
like a nice person, especially for someone from Hvard. (Speaking from
my own bias: you can always tell a Harvard man, but you cannot tell him
much.)

CNN and others reported this, ascribing the research to her co-author
Vacanti instead of her. I complained.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of Cherokee

[Blaze Spinnaker]

More international coverage:

http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/61953/20140129/fusione-fredda-bassa-energia-rossi-ecat-lenr.htm

http://sg.hu/cikkek/102926/folytatodnak-a-hidegfuzios-kiserletek

https://www.technopat.net/2014/01/29/e-cat-soguk-fuzyon-teknolojisi-industrial-heat-tarafindan-satin-alindi/




On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
wrote:

> Roundup of news:
>
> Our very good friend Mats:
> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3801145.ece
>
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175507-cold-fusion-tech-picked-up-by-major-us-partner-prepares-to-launch-in-the-american-and-chinese-energy-markets
>
>
> http://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/energia/amerikkalaisyhtio+osti+kylmafuusiolaitteen+ndash+toimintaperiaate+mysteeri+mutta+kay+silti+kaupaksi/a963414
>
> ouch:
>
> http://gizmodo.com/a-u-s-company-bought-the-rights-to-this-dubious-cold-f-1508731448
>
> ouch:
>
> http://www.popsci.com/article/science/dubious-cold-fusion-machine-acquired-north-carolina-company
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> Interesting SOTU.
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
>>
>> "Let's continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops
>> giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don't need it so we
>> can invest more in fuels of the future that do. ("
>>
>> I suppose you could call Solar power a fuel of the future.  Still, this
>> with the shoutout to the high tech hub established in North Carolina where
>>  Obama was touring the area with the Energy Secretary.   I wonder if they
>> had time to talk with Darden or if Darden timed the PR to coincide with
>> Obama's visit.
>>
>> Interesting coincidences nonetheless.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the comment is been made - this is a company that lives on the
>>> largess of government funding.
>>>
>>> Certainly, Rossi has tried to pull from that particular tit as well.
>>>
>>> Let's hope we don't see the same thing happening with the eCat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Alain Sepeda 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 in 2007-2008, was there something that happened in real estate market ?


 2014-01-28 Blaze Spinnaker 

 From 2010:
>
>
> http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6216
>
> One of North Carolina's real estate investments that has tanked is a
> commitment to invest $100 million in Cherokee Investment Partners IV, a
> fund run by a Raleigh company. The state had invested less than $7 million
> in the fund by the end of 2008 but had paid out close to $1.5 million in
> management fees.
>
> Cherokee Investment Partners, the parent company of the fund and
> another company North Carolina has invested in, is the subject of a 
> federal
> probe in connection with failed golf and housing projects in New Jersey.
>
> The New Jersey inspector general issued a report in 2008 finding that
> a company backed by one of the limited partnerships in North Carolina's
> pension fund had mismanaged a project on a landfill site in Bergen County.
>
> Thomas Darden, the CEO of Cherokee Investment Partners, contributed
> $1,000 to Moore in 2004. Darden did not respond to an e-mail seeking
> comment.
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4

[a.ashfield]

I spoke to BLP yesterday.  They said they were working on the video of 
the demo of Jan 28th. and expected it to be published on their site next 
week.
If the anomalous energy is as high as claimed it should be possible to 
demonstrate it even with a few pulses.  I suppose we will see next week.

Re: [Vo]:Huizenga dies

[Alain Sepeda]

yes, he is not the problem but the symptom,
imagine that his logic is still used against cold fusion.

this logic is exactly the opposite of what we pretend to teach to students.

the same guys who bash cold fusion criticize pseudo science which use the
same arguments... pathetic


2014-01-30 James Bowery :

> The individuals involved are not important.  What is important are the
> institutiosn that produce Huizenga's mentality in such abundance and
> cultural dominance.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> It is unfortunate that he did not live long enough to understand the
>> damage he caused to the world by his vendetta against cold fusion.  One, or
>> perhaps two more years and we would have witnessed his mea culpa.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Alan Fletcher 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 30, 2014 4:08 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Huizenga dies
>>
>>   NYT is stuck in  1999
>>
>>  John R. Huizenga, Physicist at Fore of Nuclear Era, Dies at 92
>> <
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/science/john-r-huizenga-physicist-at-fore-of-nuclear-era-dies-at-92.html?hpw&rref=obituaries>
>> ;
>>
>>  "It's as dead as ever," Dr. Huizenga told The New York 
>> Timesin
>>  an interview. "It's quite unbelievable that the thing has gone on for 10
>> years."
>>
>
>