Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Daniel Rocha]

Cold Fusion exists for PdD. What is not proven is NiH fusion.


2014-05-18 3:46 GMT-03:00 Kevin O'Malley :

>  [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (kevmol...@gmail.com) Add cleanup 
> rule|
>  More
> info
>
> Here's an old discussion I had on an intrade board about the "probability
> of Rossi being real"
>
>
>
> http://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html
>
>  Re: I miss 
> Intrade
>
> [image: Post] by *intrader
> * »
> Mon May 27, 2013 2:12 am
> Third time is the charm:
>
> P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
> or
> P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(A|B)
>
> A = E-Cat & Rossi is real
> B = Cold fusion (or something close to it) is discovered
>
> If E-Cat is real, it looks like cold fusion to me (or something close to
> it). P(B|A) = 0.5
> I think we all can go with the prior probability that E-Cat & Rossi was
> probably not real (history of fraud / was convicted / etc) P(A) = 0.01
>
> Now, what is the probability that if cold fusion exists that it's going to
> be Rossi that makes a real e-cat?
>
> Interestingly, the more we disparage Rossi (relative to his colleagues)
> here, the more likely cold fusion exists.
>
> Unfortunately, I think only people like Rossi are actually looking at cold
> fusion. So if it does exists, I think it's reasonable to say it'll be Rossi
> or perhaps someone like Rossi that might discover it. So, P(A|B) = 0.05 (I
> think it's fair to say at least 20 other people are looking at it).
>
> However, if it looks like more people of Rossi's caliber or better are
> looking at Cold Fusion, then that bodes well for CF. So, go ahead and punch
> in your own number there.
>
> Counter intuitive, kinda, but that's bayes for you.
>
>
> So, P(B) = (0.5 * 0.01) / 0.05 = 25% cold fusion exists.
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Kevin O'Malley]

Here's an old discussion I had on an intrade board about the "probability
of Rossi being real"



http://intrade.freeforums.org/i-miss-intrade-t29.html

 Re: I miss Intrade

[image: Post] by *intrader
* » Mon
May 27, 2013 2:12 am
Third time is the charm:

P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
or
P(B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(A|B)

A = E-Cat & Rossi is real
B = Cold fusion (or something close to it) is discovered

If E-Cat is real, it looks like cold fusion to me (or something close to
it). P(B|A) = 0.5
I think we all can go with the prior probability that E-Cat & Rossi was
probably not real (history of fraud / was convicted / etc) P(A) = 0.01

Now, what is the probability that if cold fusion exists that it's going to
be Rossi that makes a real e-cat?

Interestingly, the more we disparage Rossi (relative to his colleagues)
here, the more likely cold fusion exists.

Unfortunately, I think only people like Rossi are actually looking at cold
fusion. So if it does exists, I think it's reasonable to say it'll be Rossi
or perhaps someone like Rossi that might discover it. So, P(A|B) = 0.05 (I
think it's fair to say at least 20 other people are looking at it).

However, if it looks like more people of Rossi's caliber or better are
looking at Cold Fusion, then that bodes well for CF. So, go ahead and punch
in your own number there.

Counter intuitive, kinda, but that's bayes for you.


So, P(B) = (0.5 * 0.01) / 0.05 = 25% cold fusion exists.

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

I am thinking along the same lines that you suggest below.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer


  Jones,

  I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from 
the nucleus.  The energy of these rays is not the criteria.

  One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by 
the nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta.  At 
the moment we are assuming that the energy is stored as spin states that have a 
certain minimum amount of energy.   How do we establish the energy between 
steps?  If they are calculated by measuring the energy spectrum due to nuclear 
reactions then the exact nature of those reactions must be understood.  Who 
knows whether or not the levels measured to date have been made under 
conditions associated with LENR reactions?

  There is discussion about how resonances coupled into the nuclei via the 
large magnetic fields might be able to focus the energy at their frequencies by 
allowing easy transport of energy.  This method of transport has not been well 
established AFAIK.  But some technique must exist to prevent the dangerous 
radiation from being emitted as is expected by the physics community and this 
seems to be the best candidate so far.

  I find the fact that the electromagnetic energy can be released after a time 
delay to be significant.  Whatever determines this delay period might also find 
a way to distribute the energy into many lower energy units instead of a 
concentrated burst.  I can visualize this as somewhat similar to the filtering 
of a wide band noise spectrum into smaller more coherent slots.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 7:39 pm
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss
was through conversion of electron mass. 


Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There
are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei.

As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. 

AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at
less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking
clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not
atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Daniel Rocha]

Really? In Italy, he was granted. Only there. An it is extremely unlikely
that he will get anywhere which will render the rest of what you wrote is
completely meaningless regarding intellectual property.

You are really the one without sense Jed. You are driving a tower of
speculations over your own vanity.


2014-05-17 23:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
Rossi does have intellectual property.


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

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

If your description of the process is accurate then one must assume that
> the nucleons become attracted and bound to each other as the fusion
> progresses.


Personally, I do not set much store in Ed's theory.  I'm no nuclear
physicist.  But it seems to me that in any context except perhaps a quark
plasma the strong interaction and coulomb repulsion will continue to apply.
 Coulomb repulsion means that when you try to push two nuclei together,
they'll bounce apart, like magnets with the same pole facing each other.
 The strong force means that if you somehow overcome this repulsion and
push them close enough together, they'll snap together with great force.
 But Ed wants the process to be gradual rather than violent. There's also
the problem of the weak interaction.  Two protons will not stay together
long, so you need to have an inverse beta decay if protons are the starting
point.  But inverse beta decay normally happens very infrequently, so for
Ed's process to work, either you have to find a way to speed the weak
interaction up, or to say that the weak interaction doesn't apply.  All of
this combines to make the nuclear-active environment very unique indeed.

Perhaps the extreme magnetic field that many are speculating about is able
> to confine the nucleons and one or more electrons in such a manner that
> this can occur in 1 dimension.


I'm not sure what other forces are thought to be at play, but I think that
Ed believes the cracks in his theory to be responsible or partly
responsible for confining the precursors to a single dimension.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[David Roberson]

Eric,

If your description of the process is accurate then one must assume that the 
nucleons become attracted and bound to each other as the fusion progresses.  
This must be true because it will take energy equal to that which is radiated 
in order to tear them apart again.

Perhaps the extreme magnetic field that many are speculating about is able to 
confine the nucleons and one or more electrons in such a manner that this can 
occur in 1 dimension.  I can imagine that a large magnetic field working along 
with the standard electric fields would be capable of restricting the electron 
positioned between the various active hydrogen nuclei.  Think some form of 
crossed field device sort of like a magnetron.  Those electrons that are 
aligned with the proton's electric field lines and the external magnetic field 
lines move easily while those at right angles are retarded.

Maybe we need a cookbook of how to make proton stew. :-)

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer



On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM,   wrote:


I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion
of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to
happen.



This is how I understand Ed's theory.  The mass-energy that is converted to low 
energy photons is from the nucleons themselves, as they slowly fuse into either 
4He or D.  The process is supposed to occur gradually, somehow.  The image I 
had was of the nucleons slowly sliding together along a single dimension and 
yielding mass as they go in the form of photons.  (This obviously sets aside 
the usual considerations about the strong force and coulomb repulsion.)



I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was

through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at
all.



I don't recall a specific explanation for this particular step, either, except 
that Ed believes the behavior of the nuclei within the hydroton to be a 
completely different from that in normal fusion, made possible by the unique 
context of the "nuclear-active environment."


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Well, you have a contradiction, if he bragged stealing intellectual
> property (which Rossi doesn't have and is unable to acquire!), he'd have
> something working!
>

Rossi does have intellectual property. His devices work. He knows how to
make them. It may be that he has not written a patent or some other
coherent description of how to fabricate the devices, but he knows.

Xanthoulis bragged that he stole the secret. As I recall, he said Rossi was
unaware of the fact they looked the powder with a mass spec. However, it is
clear that Defkalion was not able to replicate. Their devices do not
produce excess heat. So Xanthoulis thought that his company had stolen the
secret, and he bragged about it, but he was wrong.

Xanthoulis does not seem to have much technical knowledge. I suppose his
people told him "we have the secret" and he believed them.



> Aren't you the one tarnishing your own reputation?
>

No. You are confused.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

It Defkalion did not prevent these tests, I think it is up to them to
> publish a statement explaining why the tests were not done until after
> ICCF18. Let them tell their version of the story. If they do not respond, I
> will assume Gamberale is telling the truth.
>

Yes, this is very reasonable.  If they remain quiet, it becomes harder and
harder over time to escape the conclusion that they were hoping to
manipulate the outcome of the test by keeping Gamberale from taking good
measurements.


> If DGT prevented the tests they are frauds.
>

If they prevented simple, common sense measurements, this is a hard
conclusion to avoid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, you have a contradiction, if he bragged stealing intellectual
property (which Rossi doesn't have and is unable to acquire!), he'd have
something working! Aren't you the one tarnishing your own reputation?


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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> With all confidence, you repeat Gamberale's assertion that Defkalion
> prevented Gamberale from doing common sense tests, as though it were
> established fact.  What is the basis for your confidence?
>

There is corroboration. In retrospect this is the only explanation that
makes sense.

Defkalion prevented me and several others from visiting after they realized
that we intended to bring our own instruments and do those same
reality-check tests. They cancelled on me and the others 3 times, the last
time a few hours before the plane left. Looking back, this was a game of
chicken. They only wanted visitors they could dupe.

The fact that Defkalion Europe (DE) closed down soon after the test
indicates DE found a serious problem. I am sure it was the flow meter. I
heard that from multiple sources. Hadjichristos confirmed that soon after
the conference.

Such a serious problem should have been caught earlier. It should have been
caught before ICCF18. There has to be reason they did not even do a simple
check until the day after the ICCF18 test. Gamberale clearly knew how to do
this test. Perhaps there is some other reason he failed to do it, and no
"gentleman's agreement." Since he knew how to do it and realized the
importance, I can't imagine why else he would refrain from doing it. It is
a strange story, I will grant.

It Defkalion did not prevent these tests, I think it is up to them to
publish a statement explaining why the tests were not done until after
ICCF18. Let them tell their version of the story. If they do not respond, I
will assume Gamberale is telling the truth.



> It is not Xanthoulis.  He acknowledged that there was a problem with the
> flow meter.  He did not acknowledge that Defkalion prevented Gamberale from
> doing common sense tests.
>

I think it must have been Xanthoulis or someone else from Defkalion. Any
normal, sane person familiar with calorimetry would do these tests.
Gamberale understood why the tests were needed, and he did them as soon as
the people from Defkalion left.


You are casting doubt on your objectivity.
>

I would have to be blind fool not to assume these people are frauds and
cheats!

For one thing, when they were still rolling in money they promised to pay
me $1,400, and they ran up much larger debts with other people. Then they
lied and lied and lied about that, in public, and they tried to trash my
reputation, repeatedly. Then Xanthoulis bragged in the press that they
stole intellectual property from Rossi. He was bragging to the whole world
that he is a crook! Can you imagine?!? Who would do business with someone
who brags that he robbed his former business partner? So I have known all
along they are deadbeats and liars.



>  You are beginning to sound like Krivit.  You want to take a short-cut to
> get to a conclusion that you believe to be true.
>

The conclusion has been inescapable for years. It is none of my business,
and I am not a police investigator or a self-styled Tintin reporter like
Krivit. However, when anyone asked me about Defkalion I told them: "They
look like a bunch a crooks to me. They have never published any data.
Everyone I know who has been there says it does not work. And they stiffed
me for $1,400. You would be crazy to do business with them." I have never
kept any of that a secret. It would be irresponsible for me *not* to tell
people that.


 The conclusion about Defkalion that you want to get to is probably
> spot-on.  But, at least from the information that has been made public, all
> we have are assertions from parties directly involved concerning Defkalion
> preventing Gamberale from making accurate measurements.  This detail is
> likely to be true, but has not been established to be true.
>

It hardly matters whether it is true or not. If they neglected to do common
sense tests, both DGT and DE were grossly incompetent. If DGT prevented the
tests they are frauds. Either way they are unqualified and no one should do
business with them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[David Roberson]

Jones,

I believe that the term gamma ray is reserved for photons that originate from 
the nucleus.  The energy of these rays is not the criteria.

One would suppose that the energy contained within the radiation emitted by the 
nucleus is determined by the energy steps between the stored quanta.  At the 
moment we are assuming that the energy is stored as spin states that have a 
certain minimum amount of energy.   How do we establish the energy between 
steps?  If they are calculated by measuring the energy spectrum due to nuclear 
reactions then the exact nature of those reactions must be understood.  Who 
knows whether or not the levels measured to date have been made under 
conditions associated with LENR reactions?

There is discussion about how resonances coupled into the nuclei via the large 
magnetic fields might be able to focus the energy at their frequencies by 
allowing easy transport of energy.  This method of transport has not been well 
established AFAIK.  But some technique must exist to prevent the dangerous 
radiation from being emitted as is expected by the physics community and this 
seems to be the best candidate so far.

I find the fact that the electromagnetic energy can be released after a time 
delay to be significant.  Whatever determines this delay period might also find 
a way to distribute the energy into many lower energy units instead of a 
concentrated burst.  I can visualize this as somewhat similar to the filtering 
of a wide band noise spectrum into smaller more coherent slots.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 7:39 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss
was through conversion of electron mass. 


Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There
are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei.

As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. 

AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at
less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking
clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not
atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays?

Jones



 

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM,  wrote:

I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant
> portion
> of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to
> happen.
>

This is how I understand Ed's theory.  The mass-energy that is converted to
low energy photons is from the nucleons themselves, as they slowly fuse
into either 4He or D.  The process is supposed to occur gradually, somehow.
 The image I had was of the nucleons slowly sliding together along a single
dimension and yielding mass as they go in the form of photons.  (This
obviously sets aside the usual considerations about the strong force and
coulomb repulsion.)

I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was
> through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any
> explanation at
> all.


I don't recall a specific explanation for this particular step, either,
except that Ed believes the behavior of the nuclei within the hydroton to
be a completely different from that in normal fusion, made possible by the
unique context of the "nuclear-active environment."

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss
was through conversion of electron mass. 


Well Robin, he did say the energy in his theory was shed as photons. There
are only two possibilities for the source - electrons or nuclei.

As far as I know, the nucleus sheds photons as gamma rays. 

AFAIK there is no apparent mechanism to shed photons from the nucleus at
less energy than gamma ... but this is a weekend and I may not be thinking
clearly. Tell me, is there any evidence in the literature of nuclei (not
atoms but nuclei) shedding energy in quanta below gamma rays?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 17 May 2014 07:11:07 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hi Robin,
>
>Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it,
>I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it
>raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that
>with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close
>to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing
>their own nuclear mass significantly.

I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion
of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to
happen.

>
>The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient
>in mass energy - 

I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was
through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at
all. I do know that he thinks there is an electron capture reaction followed by
a beta-decay, which I think is only possible if the electron capture reaction
happens first outside the nucleus, à la WL, but Ed doesn't agree. He seems to
think it happens inside the nucleus. I can't see why two opposite beta decay
reactions would follow one another.

>reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by
>only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). 

Not sure where you get the 3 MeV from. BTW one would need to remove at least
4.033 MeV worth of mass from the participants in the reaction beforehand in
order to prohibit the D+D -> T + p reaction. (Words chosen carefully.)


>In short,
>the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be
>prompted by a massively larger "zone of depletion" - and not from simply the
>two atoms. 
>
>Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only
>explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to
>energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle-
>then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular
>gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense
>light source.


unless the two are inextricably linked. I.e. 

no mass loss => no fusion
no fusion => no mass loss.

They would both need to be part and parcel of the same reaction.
[snip]


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Bob Cook]

The magnetic fields in the nucleus may be more than 800 times the field 
strength for EM spin coupling we know about.   The energy would be 
comparable, since the energy of a rotating magnetic moment I believe is 
proportional to the strength of the field.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer



On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high
levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? 
That

would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin
coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM 
spin

coupling, based on the same geometry.


Ah, but can you assume the same environment in the presence of the strong 
force?

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Daniel Rocha]

True, and the nature of the problem was not estabilished. For example, it
could be an understimation of the flux or an overstimation. It could be
anything. But it did not mean at all that it could necessarily be 0.


2014-05-17 18:15 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :

>  He acknowledged that there was a problem with the flow meter.
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Thanks for your ideas.

One feature of QM systems that I have assumed is that the differential 
energy gaps between states increase and align  with magnetic field strength. 
In other words the quanta of energy available when changing from one state 
to another can be whatever you want depending on the applied field.  If one 
were to get merely 24 ev between states, it would only take 1 million 
receptors or fewer to allow the distribution of the 24 Mev mass energy you 
are concerned about.


Resonant magnetic field frequencies may help the coupling and provide 
available receptor particles including electronic electrons.   Variable 
magnetic frequencies may allow inclusion of more particles and receptive 
areas in a lattice for participation in the fractionation process increasing 
resonant conditions.   The quantum system involved in the coupling may be as 
large as a nano particle with may more particles than necessary to accept 
the 24 MEV in small energy quanta donations.


In addition the decay process of a virtual excited  He-4 nucleus may slow 
some to wait for available resonant conditions for the spin energy 
distribution to happen.


Again the above model for energy distribution depends upon coupling in nano 
sized particles, which we know little about.  As far as I know the 
theory/math for the coupling does not exist.  However, if there are 
overlapping wave function from one particle to the next, then the whole 
system could be coupled.


Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook


Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this

case.

Bob - Spin coupling should easily be possible for a low to intermediate
range of energies per atom - my guess is that it is sub-eV range, possibly
milli-eV, but even if it goes up to keV that may not be enough to fit into
the circumstances of ~24 MeV fusion. The very large energy to be shed, and
the time required to accomplish that, in order to get to helium from
deuterium, is the problem.

Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high
levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That
would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin
coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM 
spin

coupling, based on the same geometry.

BTW - since we are surely talking about another form of induction - what 
is

the most efficient electrical transformer, in terms of energy transferred
per unit of mass of the transformer? Can we work backwards from there? If
not, why not?

The recent distrust with DGT is another problem for spin coupling - since
they claimed a magnetic field in the range of what implies high energy 
spin

coupling. If that can be verified, then we are in new territory.

When all is said and done - I like spin coupling as the preferred energy
transfer mechanism in LENR, but find that it is much more defensible as a
way to transfer the tiny amount of sequential energy of say - the Lamb
Shift, or the Casimir dynamical effect, or at the high end, the binding
energy of positronium - instead of the huge amount of energy of deuterium
fusion to helium.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

They were the ones who insisted that Gamberale set up the system that way.
> When he tried to install additional equipment to confirm the flow rate,
> they ordered it removed without discussion. They stopped him from doing
> common sense tests that would have revealed the flow meter was not working.
>

With all confidence, you repeat Gamberale's assertion that Defkalion
prevented Gamberale from doing common sense tests, as though it were
established fact.  What is the basis for your confidence?  It is not
Xanthoulis.  He acknowledged that there was a problem with the flow meter.
 He did not acknowledge that Defkalion prevented Gamberale from doing
common sense tests.

You are casting doubt on your objectivity.  You are beginning to sound like
Krivit.  You want to take a short-cut to get to a conclusion that you
believe to be true.  The conclusion about Defkalion that you want to get to
is probably spot-on.  But, at least from the information that has been made
public, all we have are assertions from parties directly involved
concerning Defkalion preventing Gamberale from making accurate
measurements.  This detail is likely to be true, but has not been
established to be true.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

How can a flowmeter give counts- and 1 Liter per minute is much when
> nothing goes through it?
>

You tell me! You are the one with insider information. Ask Xanthoulis or
Hadjichristos. They were the ones who insisted that Gamberale set up the
system that way. When he tried to install additional equipment to confirm
the flow rate, they ordered it removed without discussion. They stopped him
from doing common sense tests that would have revealed the flow meter was
not working. As soon as the people from Defkalion left the lab, Gamberale
tested the flow rate and found it registered even when the flow was zero.

Since even Xanthoulis admits this, I do not see why you dispute it.


>
> I just tell that this trick cannot be used to obtain
> increased number of counts with consistent values as recorded during the (
> hours demo I was watching till late night.
>

The values were not consistent. You are wrong about that. Read the
Gamberale report, and look at the oscilloscope traces in the report. The
flow meter reading on the screen looked consistent but the oscilloscope
showed they were randomly spaced, which proves they were not caused by a
constant flow of water from the tap. Instead, they were caused by water
sloshing back and forth.



> And please do not say DGT has no publications- see the ICCF-17, ICCF-18
> and PIM papers- . . .
>

I have seen them. I do not see any data from experiments in these papers.
Only vague generalizations, theory blather, graphs without proper labels,
and public relations bullshit. Such as this:

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1

I have not seen any third-party verifications either.



> The Gamberale Report is just an attack against DGT - the Greek company had
> to protect its know-how.
>

Defkalion Europe was a joint venture with Defkalion. Defkalion owned half
of it. It was set up with an agreement to share the know-how. Why did
Defkalion have to protect its know-how against its own joint venture, in
violation of the contract?!? Why did they drive their own joint venture
into bankruptcy and lose hundreds of millions in potential business? I do
not see how that "protects" Defkalion.

And if this is "just an attack" why does Xanthoulis agree with it? He
admits the flow meter was not working. Is he attacking himself?

What you are saying makes no sense.



> However this discussion line can be continued only with the implication of
> the flowmeter manufacturers.
>

You seem to be saying that testing the flowmeter with a stopwatch and
cylinder, or showing it registers 1 L/min when the flow is zero are not
valid ways to test a flow meter. I am sure that if you ask the flow meter
manufacturers, they will tell you these are valid ways to confirm the meter
readings. I have read flow meter operating manuals that tell you do these
steps.

There are, in fact, no other ways to test flow meter. This is how you do
it. When the meter fails these tests, you can be sure it is not working.
There is no need to consult with a manufacturer. When you see no water
flowing through but the screen tells you it is 1 L/min., the instrument is
not working.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Peter Gluck]

How can a flowmeter give counts- and 1 Liter per minute is much when
nothing goes through it? I just tell that this trick cannot be used to
obtain
increased number of counts with consistent values as recorded during the (
hours demo I was watching till late night.
And please do not say DGT has no publications- see the ICCF-17, ICCF-18
and PIM papers- they tell too much about how they are working.
The Gamberale Report is just an attack against DGT - the Greek company had
to protect its know-how.
However this discussion line can be continued only with the implication of
the flowmeter manufacturers.
Peter.


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Jed, do you really understand how the two valve one flowmeter works
>> and can be used to multiply the flow reading/recordings ?If not, please
>> ask a company that manufactures flowmeters and you will learn that reverse
>> flow is not recorded.
>>
>
> If the reverse flow is not recorded then it was the forward flow repeated
> several times for the same water. They observed a flow rate of 1 L/min when
> the flow rate was zero, so obviously the flow meter was malfunctioning.
> Gamberale measured the actual flow, with a stopwatch and cylinder, and he
> discovered that the flowmeter is wrong. Do you dispute that? On what basis?
>
> The president of Defkalion, Xanthoulis, agreed that it was not working.
> Why do you dispute him? Do you know something that Xanthoulis does not know?
>
> If the people at Defkalion could have answered Gamberale to show that the
> flow meter was correct, why didn't they? Why did they say nothing, and do
> nothing, while DE warned its customers that machine does not work, and then
> went bankrupt? You seem to be suggesting that they have good data, and they
> can prove the machine works, but rather than do this they threw away
> hundreds of millions of dollars in potential business and drove their own
> joint venture into bankruptcy. Why? This makes no sense.
>
> If you, or the people at Defkalion, have any proof this machine works, I
> suggest you reveal it now, before they end up in jail.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Jed, do you really understand how the two valve one flowmeter works
> and can be used to multiply the flow reading/recordings ?If not, please
> ask a company that manufactures flowmeters and you will learn that reverse
> flow is not recorded.
>

If the reverse flow is not recorded then it was the forward flow repeated
several times for the same water. They observed a flow rate of 1 L/min when
the flow rate was zero, so obviously the flow meter was malfunctioning.
Gamberale measured the actual flow, with a stopwatch and cylinder, and he
discovered that the flowmeter is wrong. Do you dispute that? On what basis?

The president of Defkalion, Xanthoulis, agreed that it was not working. Why
do you dispute him? Do you know something that Xanthoulis does not know?

If the people at Defkalion could have answered Gamberale to show that the
flow meter was correct, why didn't they? Why did they say nothing, and do
nothing, while DE warned its customers that machine does not work, and then
went bankrupt? You seem to be suggesting that they have good data, and they
can prove the machine works, but rather than do this they threw away
hundreds of millions of dollars in potential business and drove their own
joint venture into bankruptcy. Why? This makes no sense.

If you, or the people at Defkalion, have any proof this machine works, I
suggest you reveal it now, before they end up in jail.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Peter Gluck]

Jed, do you really understand how the two valve one flowmeter works
and can be used to multiply the flow reading/recordings ?If not, please ask
a company that manufactures flowmeters and you will learn that reverse flow
is not recorded. The trick is what the French call trouvaille.The Italians
say "Se non e vero, e ben trovato" Naive is to accept what the Gamberale
report says- actually it does not refer to the actual Demo of July 23
And things are not what they seem in this case.
Peter.


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> I didn't ever mention he merely got data or just observed it.
>>
>
> Ah. I thought that is what you were referring to. I do not know what you
> mean, if not that.
>
> Anyway, there is no data. There are only meaningless numbers from a
> mistake. Or from fraudulent settings of the valves. Kim's theories are
> based on nothing.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

The problem is that, it is how easy is to make HENI, as DGT calls the high
> yield cold fusion.
>

Apparently it is not easy. Not for DGT, anyway. They have not made
anything. No one has ever seen their system work. Or if someone has, the
report is being kept secret.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

I didn't ever mention he merely got data or just observed it.
>

Ah. I thought that is what you were referring to. I do not know what you
mean, if not that.

Anyway, there is no data. There are only meaningless numbers from a
mistake. Or from fraudulent settings of the valves. Kim's theories are
based on nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Daniel Rocha]

The problem is that, it is how easy is to make HENI, as DGT calls the high
yield cold fusion.  The mere seeing of it for one month, or a few weeks,
you can figure out. This is why Rossi is so paranoid.


2014-05-17 15:21 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> I didn't ever mention he merely got data or just observed it.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Daniel Rocha]

I didn't ever mention he merely got data or just observed it.




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

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> I wish you'd believe me he did not get the result in that way.  :)
>

Ask him. If Kim tells me he observed experiments himself, I will believe it.

I will still consider him naive. Even if he observed experiments, he could
not have checked the flow rate. He would have seen the device was not
producing excess heat. As far as I know, no one has every confirmed that it
produces excess heat, and all of the measurements of excess heat have been
mistaken. Perhaps there are measurements I did not hear about.

If the people at Defkalion have a legitimate, third party report showing
excess heat, they should publish it. They are in deep trouble. They may
even end up facing criminal charges for fraud. I presume a third party
report would exonerate them. So they should publish one if they have it.
Whatever business reasons they might have for secrecy, staying out the
courtroom and staying out of jail should be a higher priority.

I think it is unlikely any report exists. I also think it is unlikely the
device ever worked. I cannot tell whether this was fraud or incompetence.
The only way to find out would be to conduct an investigation with a
warrant to bring them in for questioning and search their e-mail and other
sources for evidence that they knew the flow rate was wrong, and they
deliberately set the valves to make it wrong. That is what Gamberale
alleges here:

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/

Gamberale said, "To obtain this effect it’s necessary to operate two valves
in a certain way, so you need to have the intention to do it."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high
> levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That
> would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin
> coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin
> coupling, based on the same geometry.

Ah, but can you assume the same environment in the presence of the strong force?

RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

> Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this
case. 

Bob - Spin coupling should easily be possible for a low to intermediate
range of energies per atom - my guess is that it is sub-eV range, possibly
milli-eV, but even if it goes up to keV that may not be enough to fit into
the circumstances of ~24 MeV fusion. The very large energy to be shed, and
the time required to accomplish that, in order to get to helium from
deuterium, is the problem.

Can you find anything in the literature that would indicate the very high
levels of energy transfer via spin coupling which would be necessary? That
would be a good start. After all, we are talking about nuclear spin
coupling, which is presumably 500-800 times lower in intensity than EM spin
coupling, based on the same geometry. 

BTW - since we are surely talking about another form of induction - what is
the most efficient electrical transformer, in terms of energy transferred
per unit of mass of the transformer? Can we work backwards from there? If
not, why not?

The recent distrust with DGT is another problem for spin coupling - since
they claimed a magnetic field in the range of what implies high energy spin
coupling. If that can be verified, then we are in new territory.

When all is said and done - I like spin coupling as the preferred energy
transfer mechanism in LENR, but find that it is much more defensible as a
way to transfer the tiny amount of sequential energy of say - the Lamb
Shift, or the Casimir dynamical effect, or at the high end, the binding
energy of positronium - instead of the huge amount of energy of deuterium
fusion to helium.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Bob Cook]

The D's may be able to shed they mass energy via SPIN COUPLING, IF they 
combine to form a virtual He with a high spin state/energy  that can be 
distributed to many other particles in the QM system, including the 
electrons, all without gammas being emitted.  Again the question is the 
coupling.  IMHO there is no reason why virtual particles cannot have high 
energy spin states to handle excess mass energy in the short term.


Jones--You seem to conclude spin coupling is possible, why not in this case. 
Everything that has not been discovered to date has been unnoticed 
heretofore by definition.  Other reactions of D may not have had the 
necessary structure/parameter control  to allow the coupling.  Consider just 
one parameter, the appropriate alignment of magnetic fields.  Was this 
parameter addressed in light bulbs in the past?


Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:11 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer



Hi Robin,

Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention 
it,

I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it
raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that
with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close
to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing
their own nuclear mass significantly.

The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are 
deficient

in mass energy - reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by
only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). In short,
the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be
prompted by a massively larger "zone of depletion" - and not from simply 
the

two atoms.

Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only
explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to
energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle-
then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see 
spectacular
gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely 
intense

light source.

In fact, deuterium-filled arc emission bulbs for lighting have been used 
for
50 years in microscopy, with no reported thermal anomaly. Could that kind 
of

anomaly have gone unnoticed?

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com

What do you make of the following message from the archives?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html



Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which

might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the
"makeup" nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to
orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed
fusion reaction.)


This sounds like Ed's theory. ;)


...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between:

a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy
release, delayed over an extended time frame.

and

b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear
mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which 
can

only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone.

My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Nice Work Alain

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alain Sepeda 
  To: Vortex List 
  Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 1:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  I've made a short analysis of that announce, and the connections with 
LENr-cities/LENR-Cars
  
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/338-LENR-Invest-Fund-I-LLC-raises-205-000-in-May/



  I don't have confirmation, but connecting some wire I have an idea of what is 
the money for.
  Not a huge project... but something (if I'm right) that will make some 
skeptics furious and the LENR community happy.
  Angel are landing.


  This kind of money is not industrial investment but entry cash for inception.


  As I've heard the problem with industrial is that they are OK to invest few 
million in a finished prototype, but not 100k in research.
  It is a hard work to get 100k.



  2014-05-16 23:04 GMT+02:00 Kevin O'Malley :

Here's an example of some early-adopter money starting to move into this 
space. The problem is, it's not available to just anyone, and in particular, 
they already closed it off for this fund.  





http://form-d.findthebest.com/l/162985/Lenr-Invest-Fund-I-LLC





Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC, which is in the Pooled Investment Fund business, 
filed a new Form D on May 13, 2014.

Offering Details
  a.. The total reported offering size was $205,000.
  b.. Of this amount, Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC sold $205,000 or (100% of the 
offering), with the first sale occuring on May 01, 2014. 
  c.. The minimum investment for this offering was set at $15,000.
Analysis of Offering
  a.. On average, companies in this industry sell 34.75% of the total 
offering size. $0 was reported remaining. 
  b.. The average floor on investment size for companies in the Pooled 
Investment Fund industry is $100,000.
  c.. The method of investment was Equity.
Registration Exemptions
  a.. The company reported the following exemptions: Rule 506(b).
Rule 506(b): A federal and state registration exmeption provided under 
Regulation D. Allows the issuer to raise unlimited funds with no limitations on 
the number of accredited investos and up to 35 non-accredited investors. The 
issuer is not allowed to publicly solicit the offering. For more information on 
Rule 506 see Key Regulation D Rules.



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Any "steam engine" stocks?



  I think that this is a good question and especially because many who 
support
  LENR would probably plow back any profits made from the Rossi announcement
  into R&D.

  Rossi is the tip of the massive iceberg – capable of sinking the Titanic
  OPEC (or at least turning her back to port) but since AR admits to not
  understanding what is going on –this is a wide open field, needing only 
R&D
  dollars and smart experienced researchers to explore all the angles.

RE: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer

[Jones Beene]

Hi Robin,

Sounds more like Randell Mills than Storms ... and now that you mention it,
I remember being surprised to hear this from Ed at the time - since it
raises more questions than it answers. The HUGE unsolved problem is that
with deuterium as the active gas, two deuterons cannot shed anywhere close
to enough mass-energy to eliminate gammas, at least not without reducing
their own nuclear mass significantly.

The two electrons - even if completely converted to photons - are deficient
in mass energy - reducing the ~24 MeV known to occur in deuteron fusion by
only a few MeV (3 MeV if one e- remains to catalyze the fusion). In short,
the deuterium fusion, if there is any via QM time reversal, needs to be
prompted by a massively larger "zone of depletion" - and not from simply the
two atoms. 

Now it gets interesting if one wants to stick to the two-atom-only
explanation. If some portion deuteron mass can be physically converted to
energy, say up to 11 MeV via UV/x-ray photon release - even in principle-
then there is no reason to proceed all the way to fusion to see spectacular
gain. Any gain prior to fusion should show up easily as an extremely intense
light source.

In fact, deuterium-filled arc emission bulbs for lighting have been used for
50 years in microscopy, with no reported thermal anomaly. Could that kind of
anomaly have gone unnoticed?

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

What do you make of the following message from the archives?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg90378.html


>> Well, there is also a possible analogy of the QM depletion zone, which
might arise in a combined type of Millsean-LENR situation, such that the
"makeup" nuclear reaction only occurs in a severely depleted zone (due to
orbital redundancy being brought back up to equilibrium by time-reversed
fusion reaction.)
>
>This sounds like Ed's theory. ;)
>
>
>...Except... there is a rather huge fundamental difference between:
> 
>a) fusion-first followed by thousands of stepwise decreases in energy
>release, delayed over an extended time frame.
>
>and
>
>b) millions of small energy releases happening first - from a non-nuclear
>mechanism, followed by a new type of QM tunneling fusion reaction which can
>only happen in a severely depleted spatial zone.
>
>My apologies to Ed if he has changed his view to reconcile the two.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Alain Sepeda]

I've made a short analysis of that announce, and the connections with
LENr-cities/LENR-Cars
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/338-LENR-Invest-Fund-I-LLC-raises-205-000-in-May/

I don't have confirmation, but connecting some wire I have an idea of what
is the money for.
Not a huge project... but something (if I'm right) that will make some
skeptics furious and the LENR community happy.
Angel are landing.

This kind of money is not industrial investment but entry cash for
inception.

As I've heard the problem with industrial is that they are OK to invest few
million in a finished prototype, but not 100k in research.
It is a hard work to get 100k.


2014-05-16 23:04 GMT+02:00 Kevin O'Malley :

> Here's an example of some early-adopter money starting to move into this
> space. The problem is, it's not available to just anyone, and in
> particular, they already closed it off for this fund.
>
>
> http://form-d.findthebest.com/l/162985/Lenr-Invest-Fund-I-LLC
>
>
> Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC, which is in the Pooled Investment Fund business,
> filed a new Form D on May 13, 2014.
> Offering Details
>
>- The total reported offering size was $205,000.
>- Of this amount, Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC sold $205,000 or (100% of
>the offering), with the first sale occuring on May 01, 2014.
>- The minimum investment for this offering was set at $15,000.
>
> Analysis of Offering
>
>- On average, companies in this industry sell 34.75% of the total
>offering size. $0 was reported remaining.
>- The average floor on investment size for companies in the Pooled
>Investment Fund industry is $100,000.
>- The method of investment was Equity.
>
> Registration Exemptions
>
>- The company reported the following exemptions: Rule 506(b).
>
> *Rule 506(b):* A federal and state registration exmeption provided under
> Regulation D. Allows the issuer to raise unlimited funds with no
> limitations on the number of accredited investos and up to 35
> non-accredited investors. The issuer is not allowed to publicly solicit the
> offering. For more information on Rule 506 see Key Regulation D Rules.
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>   Any "steam engine" stocks?
>>
>> I think that this is a good question and especially because many who
>> support
>> LENR would probably plow back any profits made from the Rossi announcement
>> into R&D.
>>
>> Rossi is the tip of the massive iceberg – capable of sinking the Titanic
>> OPEC (or at least turning her back to port) but since AR admits to not
>> understanding what is going on –this is a wide open field, needing only
>> R&D
>> dollars and smart experienced researchers to explore all the angles.
>>
>
>