[Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
I ust found that article http://www.conspirazzi.com/cold-fusion-proven-true it seems more documented than most even positive articles. if some can correct possible errors, or complete.
RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Well put, and I feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen. Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley emoticon) Steve High
Re: [Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel
No question, a new branch of condensed matter physics is opening. That is what is so infuriating about the behavior of physicists who know little about this specialized subject, and others who know nothing at all. The situation is precisely analogous to superconductivity. "What? A current with no resistance? You crackpot! No career for you!" -drl --- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel IMHO, highly correlated electron systems are the bedrock upon which LENR is built. The complicated interplay between magnetism, temperature, condensed matter, electrons, and quantum mechanics produces many strange effects including superconductivity and the hydrino ( fractional orbitons). http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/1212.3241v2.pdf Regarding fractional orbitons. This extreme complexity will keep LENR out of the common understanding of all but a few specialist and limit its development and growth. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0612006v3.pdf Abstract An introduction to the physics of heavy fermion compounds is presented, highlighting the conceptual developments and emphasizing the mysteries and open questions that persist in this active field of research. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex, > > >http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-criticality-class-materials.html > > > >Ad Astra, >Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
The behavior of this generation of physicists and astrophysicists will someday be seen as a dark chapter in the history of science and a condemnation of the new form of academic "cooperation" and competition that emerged from the paranoia of the Cold War. The culture of fundamental science has been utterly corrupted, and from my point of view, the greatest possible benefit of LENR will be the resulting purges of academia and restoration of order to a noble enterprise, when the people who ignored it or actively blocked it and suppressed its researchers are exposed for the charlatans they are. Their record will be empty string theory, vapid cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, science fiction universes, and ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. -drl --- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin From: Alain Sepeda To: Vortex List Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 3:10 AM Subject: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory I ust found that article http://www.conspirazzi.com/cold-fusion-proven-true it seems more documented than most even positive articles. if some can correct possible errors, or complete.
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Well put, and I feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen. Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley emoticon) On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:17 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they > want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our > govt does enough of that already. > > I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all > Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t imply he’s got his head > in dark places. > > > > >“The "rules" bend under such circumstances.” > > I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless > idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal > attacks… its really pretty simple. > > > > -Mark > > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint > wrote: > > Kevin, > > Lighten up. > > ***NO. > > Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from > your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html > > > He even admits to wanting to take your money. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html > > The "rules" bend under such circumstances. "Lighten up" becomes "Get a > clue". > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Aw Shucks this was supposed to be in response to the ZeroPoint message posted above, so I resent it. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Steve High wrote: > Well put, and I feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill > B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the > avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a > pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut > the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly > chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen. > Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley > emoticon) > > Steve High
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel
Ron, great citation. Perhaps these phase changes are the sources of the anomalous energy since they appear to be based on lattice structure and alloys. I often attribute the underlying source of anomalous energy as dynamic Casimir geometry effect on dimensionally constrained gas motion but the effect of a tapestry of quantum critical points on gas motion would also work :_) Fran From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:04 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Heavy Fermion Metals that contain Nickel Greetings Vortex, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-criticality-class-materials.html Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:This sure looks like a cold fusion patent to me
See: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009108331A3?cl=en "A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor WO 2009108331 A3 ABSTRACT A hybrid nuclear fusion fast fission reactor is disclosed. The hybrid reactor may include an electrolyte solution comprised of PdCI2 a conductive salt and D2O, an anode of a noble metal, a cathode consisting of a conductive high Z (atomic number greater than 46) material wound around a deuteride-forming actinide nuclear fuel element, a power source providing constant current to the + anode and the - cathode, an applied power profile for fabricating the PdD nanoalloy, and a co-deposition of a PdD nanoalloy on to the high Z cathode winding as well as the nuclear fuel element. . . . For details and related patents see: https://www.facebook.com/gbgoble/posts/10201707765005447 - Jed
RE: [Vo]:This sure looks like a cold fusion patent to me
This is Larry Forsley’s patent. Although the more general concept of combining hot and cold fusion seems valid and he is an expert - the problem with this proposal is that fast fission requires substantial fast neutrons and LENR of the variety anticipated produces mostly alphas – which will not do the job. QUOTE: “A preferred embodiment initiates deuterium-deuterium fusion in the deuterized fuel element and fissioning deuterized fuel element actinides. A preferred embodiment includes surrounding spent nuclear fuel elements with deuteride nuclear fuel elements that will fast fission the spent fuel elements. Another preferred embodiment includes surrounding the deuteride nuclear fuel elements with spent fuel elements as fast neutron reflectors that will also fission.” The $64 question is: where are the fast neutrons coming from? They usually derive from the tritium-deuterium reaction, but are not seen in LENR, so why should they show up here? From: Jed Rothwell See: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009108331A3?cl=en "A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor WO 2009108331 A3 ABSTRACT A hybrid nuclear fusion fast fission reactor is disclosed. The hybrid reactor may include an electrolyte solution comprised of PdCI2 a conductive salt and D2O, an anode of a noble metal, a cathode consisting of a conductive high Z (atomic number greater than 46) material wound around a deuteride-forming actinide nuclear fuel element, a power source providing constant current to the + anode and the - cathode, an applied power profile for fabricating the PdD nanoalloy, and a co-deposition of a PdD nanoalloy on to the high Z cathode winding as well as the nuclear fuel element. . . . For details and related patents see: https://www.facebook.com/gbgoble/posts/10201707765005447 - Jed <>
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him. It's his sandbox. In the meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it. If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal attacks that you'd invoke the name of the High One. You''re the one trying to act like the parent here. Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual* subject at hand. After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his *own* thread. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they > want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our > govt does enough of that already. > > I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all > Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t imply he’s got his head > in dark places. > > > > >“The "rules" bend under such circumstances.” > > I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless > idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal > attacks… its really pretty simple. > > > > -Mark > > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint > wrote: > > Kevin, > > Lighten up. > > ***NO. > > Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from > your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html > > > He even admits to wanting to take your money. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html > > The "rules" bend under such circumstances. "Lighten up" becomes "Get a > clue". > > > >
Re: [Vo]:This sure looks like a cold fusion patent to me
There is an interesting LENR process that Papp used in his engine to produce loads of X-rays that might be at play here. Papp loved radium because it was a prodigious producer of alpha particles. When such an alpha emitter is exposed to a heavy electric spark, the magnetic fields produced by the spark increase the decay rate of the alpha emitter enormously. While the magnetic fields are high, a large flux of Alpha particles is emitted. This LENR process was patented by Ken Shoulders to neutralize radioactive waste. This reactor may be using a magnetic field to increase alpha flux in the radioactive elements in nuclear waste to induce accelerated secondary nuclear reactions generated by high energy alpha particle flux. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > This is Larry Forsley’s patent. Although the more general concept of > combining hot and cold fusion seems valid and he is an expert - the problem > with this proposal is that fast fission requires substantial fast neutrons > and LENR of the variety anticipated produces mostly alphas – which will not > do the job. > > QUOTE: “A preferred embodiment initiates deuterium-deuterium fusion in the > deuterized fuel element and fissioning deuterized fuel element actinides. A > preferred embodiment includes surrounding spent nuclear fuel elements with > deuteride nuclear fuel elements that will fast fission the spent fuel > elements. Another preferred embodiment includes surrounding the deuteride > nuclear fuel elements with spent fuel elements as fast neutron reflectors > that will also fission.” > > The $64 question is: where are the fast neutrons coming from? They usually > derive from the tritium-deuterium reaction, but are not seen in LENR, so > why > should they show up here? > > From: Jed Rothwell > See: > http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009108331A3?cl=en > > "A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor > WO 2009108331 A3 > ABSTRACT > A hybrid nuclear fusion fast fission reactor is disclosed. > The hybrid reactor may include an electrolyte solution comprised of PdCI2 a > conductive salt and D2O, an anode of a noble metal, a cathode consisting of > a conductive high Z (atomic number greater than 46) material wound around a > deuteride-forming actinide nuclear fuel element, a power source providing > constant current to the + anode and the - cathode, an applied power profile > for fabricating the PdD nanoalloy, and a co-deposition of a PdD nanoalloy > on > to the high Z cathode winding as well as the nuclear fuel element. . . . > For details and related patents see: > https://www.facebook.com/gbgoble/posts/10201707765005447 > > - Jed > >
RE: [Vo]:This sure looks like a cold fusion patent to me
Back to the more general concept of combining hot and cold fusion… The prime avenue for LENR intrusion into the hot fusion arena seems to be as the way to prepare “targets” for ICF. This could be more true than ever, thanks to the arrival of so-called “desktop accelerators”. The desktop accelerator along with a hybridized hot-and-cold fusion scheme could be the ticket … and in some ways superior to cold fusion, since the form factor is small, the technology is fairly mature, it is easily adaptable to Direct Conversion (of heat to electricity) and the power density should be higher. We now know about the technique of rapid loading of D and Pd out of solution, at the same time via electroplating. Wasn’t Larry Forsley involved in that breakthrough as well? Anyway, this strategy of making ICF targets via CF techniques would seem obvious, and we have talked about it before in regard to the Winterberg concept and the Bae Institute: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg34994.html Which must have flopped. However, at the time of this old thread - one critical detail was omitted which might push a revised concept over the top: the superconductive nature of deuterium-loaded palladium. IOW – not just cold fusion, but ultracold fusion of a superconductor. One would think that a BEC target of solid deuterium for use in ICF would be obvious. In fact frozen pellets of deuterium were proposed half a century ago. But they were lacking. All BEC are not superconductive; and frozen deuterium is not superconductive by itself, whereas fully loaded pellets of Pd-D are superconductive. The difference could be… not just extremely important, but the difference between success and failure. _ From: Jones Beene This is Larry Forsley’s patent. Although the more general concept of combining hot and cold fusion seems valid and he is an expert - the problem with this proposal is that fast fission requires substantial fast neutrons and LENR of the variety anticipated produces mostly alphas – which will not do the job. QUOTE: “A preferred embodiment initiates deuterium-deuterium fusion in the deuterized fuel element and fissioning deuterized fuel element actinides. A preferred embodiment includes surrounding spent nuclear fuel elements with deuteride nuclear fuel elements that will fast fission the spent fuel elements. Another preferred embodiment includes surrounding the deuteride nuclear fuel elements with spent fuel elements as fast neutron reflectors that will also fission.” The $64 question is: where are the fast neutrons coming from? They usually derive from the tritium-deuterium reaction, but are not seen in LENR, so why should they show up here? From: Jed Rothwell See: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2009108331A3?cl=en "A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor WO 2009108331 A3 ABSTRACT A hybrid nuclear fusion fast fission reactor is disclosed. The hybrid reactor may include an electrolyte solution comprised of PdCI2 a conductive salt and D2O, an anode of a noble metal, a cathode consisting of a conductive high Z (atomic number greater than 46) material wound around a deuteride-forming actinide nuclear fuel element, a power source providing constant current to the + anode and the - cathode, an applied power profile for fabricating the PdD nanoalloy, and a co-deposition of a PdD nanoalloy on to the high Z cathode winding as well as the nuclear fuel element. . . . For details and related patents see: https://www.facebook.com/gbgoble/posts/10201707765005447 - Jed <>
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
I've already encountered rationalizations for this behavior that will result in an assortment of reforms, all of which will be ineffective. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote: > The behavior of this generation of physicists and astrophysicists will > someday be seen as a dark chapter in the history of science and a > condemnation of the new form of academic "cooperation" and competition that > emerged from the paranoia of the Cold War. The culture of fundamental > science has been utterly corrupted, and from my point of view, the greatest > possible benefit of LENR will be the resulting purges of academia and > restoration of order to a noble enterprise, when the people who ignored it > or actively blocked it and suppressed its researchers are exposed for the > charlatans they are. Their record will be empty string theory, vapid > cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, science fiction universes, and > ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. > > -drl > > --- > "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin > > > -- > *From:* Alain Sepeda > *To:* Vortex List > *Sent:* Thursday, June 5, 2014 3:10 AM > *Subject:* [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion > early hisory > > I ust found that article > http://www.conspirazzi.com/cold-fusion-proven-true > > it seems more documented than most even positive articles. > > if some can correct possible errors, or complete. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
To Jed, I agree with you all entrepreneurs are not the same. In a way that describes an entrepreneur - if all entrepreneurs were alike they would not be entrepreneurs. I happen to like change. I try to avoid being caught repeating myself and I like personal freedom to change as I want. I do drive over the speed limit not because I am in a hurry, but because I dislike someone telling me what to do when it is not required, Many of your examples deal with having tenacity. I think that is another must for an entrepreneur. In order to protect ones sanity it certainly help if you accept failure as a way to reach success. I can witness to that. A common problem with true entrepreneurship is that it is hard to know when there is balance between price and wisdom achieved. I agree with Edith Piaf (whom I actually saw singing in a restaurant many years ago) Non, 'je ne regrette rien'. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Jed, > > > > I've just read your modus operandi, and again I find myself wanting to say: > > > > Have you considered putting together a historical account of the Saga of > Cold Fusion? You've already written a book 10 years ago on how Cold Fusion > has the potential to transform the world for the better. You obviously know > how to go about assembling such a project. > > > > It would not be just about assembling dry facts, though obviously a > smattering of such fiddly bits would be an important contribution. > > > > It seems to me that should it become a generally accepted fact that CF (or > whatever the popular culture end up calling it) is a legitimate technology, > many will begin to thirst for a historical account of how the technology > came about in the first place. Many will wonder why the hell it took so > long. I can think of no better person who could help explain to the general > public why it is taking so long to manifest. IMHO, your grasp of general > history is impressive. Your ability to see the history of CF in context > with the rest of your knowledge of general history is the key. > > > > No doubt this will take several years to assemble, particularly since so > much is yet to happen. However, I'm absolutely sure you will get help from > many who would be honored to help proof-read such an endeavor. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com >
[Vo]:Polariton laser
Imagine... not just LENR, but LENR-on-a-Chip. http://www.nii.ac.jp/userimg/press_20130514e.pdf <>
Re: [Vo]:This sure looks like a cold fusion patent to me
Jones Beene wrote: This is Larry Forsley’s patent. It sure is! Lawrence Parker Galloway Forsley. I wonder how he snuck it by the Patent Police? > > Although the more general concept of combining hot and cold fusion seems > valid and he is an expert - the problem with this proposal is that fast > fission requires substantial fast neutrons and LENR of the variety > anticipated produces mostly alphas – which will not do the job. > Maybe they could use an external neutron source? He and Pam believe cold fusion produces neutrons. Maybe they think the number can be enhanced. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > Have you considered putting together a historical account of the Saga of > Cold Fusion? . . . > It seems to me that should it become a generally accepted fact that CF (or > whatever the popular culture end up calling it) is a legitimate technology, > many will begin to thirst for a historical account of how the technology > came about in the first place. > Honestly, I do not know much about it. History, as I see it, is the story of people -- their personal lives and interactions. I do not know much about the researchers because I deliberately avoid poking into their private lives. Many of them have tangled lives, with divorces and so on. I don't want to invade their privacy. A historian gets to read through memos, diaries, letters and (in the future) e-mails that I have no access to now. I wouldn't want access to it. I need to work with these people as an editor, which means being neutral and professional. Marianne Macy has conducted many interviews with researchers. She has loads of information. She and I have talked about writing a book sometime. We were going to write one about Rossi, but Lewan beat us to it. We are both pleased with his book. We can write about him eventually. If cold fusion succeeds there will eventually be dozens of books about Rossi, just as there are about Edison. (Amazon.com lists 199 books about Edison.) Many will wonder why the hell it took so long. I can think of no better > person who could help explain to the general public why it is taking so > long to manifest. > Well, it hasn't happened yet. If it happens I guess I can write about it. But again, to tell the story properly, I guess I would need access to Robert Park's e-mail. I need to answer the key question: What were these people thinking?!? It is easy to speculate that the skeptics have this or that motivation. I have concluded they are sincere. They really do think cold fusion is fraud and the researchers are lunatics. Other people say, "no, that is just academic politics." Who is right? If you ask Park I expect he would say: "I am sincere. I honestly believe the researchers are lunatics." As to what he thinks in his heart of hearts . . . I guess we will have to wait until we can read his e-mail. I wonder if Park himself can say whether some of his wild accusations are bluster, or whether he really means it. IMHO, your grasp of general history is impressive. Your ability to see the > history of CF in context with the rest of your knowledge of general history > is the key. > The main thing about history, it seems to me, is that it is not one story, or one narrative. There are as many different versions as there are people involved in the events. Cold fusion is an academic dispute. The most famous and long-lasting academic dispute heretofore has been the debate about evolution versus what is now called creationism. One of the most famous incidents early in this history was the debate between Thomas Huxley and the Bishop of Oxford "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce in 1860. Stephen J Gould wrote an essay about this titled "Knight takes Bishop?" Note the question mark. Did Huxley "take" the Bishop? He did if you believe modern accounts and BBC television dramas. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXq8LZ3b2YQ This event lasted only a few hours. There were many witnesses. Gould looked through contemporary letters and descriptions. We know the general outline of what happened. There is no transcription, but we know who said what. But what effect it had, and whether Huxley could be considered the winner of this debate is a matter of opinion -- contemporary opinion of the audience members. Whether Huxley made a good impression or a bad impression on the crowd is impossible to judge. Even some of the scientists in the audience thought that Huxley made a poor showing. Nowadays, Huxley is considered the winner because in the longer history of biology Huxley won. The issue is now settled. Wilberforce looks foolish in retrospect. We project our present settled worldview on the past. This is the mistake amateur historian Conrad Black did in his book about FDR, in which he asserted that in 1943 in 1944 Roosevelt, Churchill and Eisenhower knew perfectly well they would win World War II and they knew they could have invaded any time. They held back for political reasons. That is preposterous. Black knows how things turned out. He knows that the Normandy invasion turned out to be easier than Churchill and others thought it might be. It was not the Battle of the Somme all over again, which is what Churchill feared. Read original sources and you will find confusion and doubt in the memos passed back and forth between FDR Eisenhower and others. They guessed wrong about countless things. They thought they would encounter difficulties where things turned out to be easy, and they did not see where the real difficulties would be. Along similar lines, if you look through my email, you will
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go > ahead and defend him Or her.
Re: [Vo]:Polariton laser
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-laser-like-1000x-power.html A new way to make laser-like beams using 1,000x less power The photon becomes entangled with the exciton (really the electron of a electron hole dipole pair) whenever chance finds their quantum properties are the same. This forms the polariton. The photon makes BEC easy because the photon almost removes all the mass from the electron. The photon removes the charge from the electron also but increases the spin to 1. When so entangled with the electron, the photon allows untold legions of electrons to be packed into nano sized EMF black holes. The fermion exclusion principle no longer applies. Because of inspired engineering, LENR inside a NiH reactor is far more impressive because this design uses the peculiar nature of the polariton to it maximum extent. The six figure amperage discharge in a huge Florida lightning bolt is routinely packed inside each of billions of spherical polariton solitons just a few cubic nanometers in extent silently constrained inside the volume of the cozy confines of a NiH reactor. Inside the NiH reactor, the EMF storm that ensues is as severe as any supernova or neutron star explosion that the universe can produce but maybe more so. In this new universe of intense EMF reactivity, nuclear reactions are catalyzed by a disintegrating Vacuum as the very fabric of space-time is ripped apart. It is understandable way so few believe that the application of such awesome power is even possible. No matter, let them all find comfort in this blissful ignorance as the awesome power of the universe works silently in their basements to heat the water for their morning ablutions.
RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
All Vorts: Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet??? Kevin: Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings… I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real… it’s a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most here feel the same, since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that topic... I think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’. -m From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him. It's his sandbox. In the meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it. If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal attacks that you'd invoke the name of the High One. You''re the one trying to act like the parent here. Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual* subject at hand. After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his *own* thread. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our govt does enough of that already. I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t imply he’s got his head in dark places. >“The "rules" bend under such circumstances.” I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal attacks… its really pretty simple. -Mark From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Kevin, Lighten up. ***NO. Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html He even admits to wanting to take your money. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html The "rules" bend under such circumstances. "Lighten up" becomes "Get a clue".
RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
from Jed: ... > Well, it hasn't happened yet. If it happens I guess I can write about it. ... I watched the video and read your Lessons from cold fusion archives and from history. Thanks. IMHO, your professed self-doubt is precisely one of the principle reasons I continue to believe you would be very good at assembling a historical account of the CF saga. I think you have acquired a profound understanding of the pitfalls associated with the retelling-of-accounts, of just how subjective and open to personal interpretation the art of "history" really is. At least I know you are thinking about it. That's good enuf for me. I suspect there may come a time when you will feel ready to embark on the project in earnest. Perhaps sooner than you expect! ;-) Changing the subject, I hope I get around to reading Lewan's book soon. Everyone has had good things to say about it. My excuse for not reading it: Insufficient free time. Making final preparations to retire has turned out to consume far more of my personal resources than I had originally thought such an endeavor ought to take. But that's ok. Gotta get it done. The final nail in the coffin occurred last November as the result of a very specific and unpleasant encounter with management, this after enduring a string of prior stress-filled encounters where I continued to hold on to hope that things would eventually sort themselves out. Alas, it didn't. The November encounter made it very clear to me that for the sake of my own personal health and well-being it was time to get the hell out. I'm looking forward to my exit. I have many creative research projects that I would like to tackle, such as in the artistic-creative mediums, but also in specific fields of physics. I love performing theoretical research. I love assembling computer simulations just so that I can be surprised at what I stumble across. I probably have way too many personal projects than I can adequately explore with what time I have left, and that's saying a lot considering the fact that I'll turn 62 this August. I'm still quite young. I may have to do some culling. ;-) My pumpkin date is still a state secret insofar as management is concerned. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote: the people who ignored it or actively blocked it and suppressed its > researchers are exposed for the charlatans they are. Their record will be > empty string theory, vapid cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, > science fiction universes, and ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. I'm beginning to think what seems to have been a theoretical turn in the past few decades is partly what is responsible for the negative reception of the LENR research. Perhaps many physicists have lost their intuitive sense of what goes on in the physical world. There are whole subfields of physics that barely rely upon empirical evidence. Hypothetically speaking you might be able to connect string theory back to something that can be observed in the world, but even if this is true, it's so abstract that we've failed to do so yet. Presumably there are famous physicists who have devoted their careers to a subfield that has yet to give rise to observable predictions. One almost gets the sense that normal branches of physics (as opposed to theoretical physics) are second-class ones where scientists get their hands too dirty. Much of physics gives the sense of essentially being mathematics with additional fudge factor constants that you must include in your equations from time to time. My impression of the field is that it has become a little rarified, and its practitioners are tangled up in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > All Vorts: > > Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet??? > ***Yes. I did. I took him up on his bet immediately when he offered 10:1 odds, and then he quickly backtracked, citing (insert some favorite bullshit here) that there had been "news" in the meantime that changed his mind. There had been ZERO news. The only thing happening in LENR at that time was that I was schooling him. > > > Kevin: > > Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings… > ***Mark: Perhaps you need to "get a clue". If pointing out that Blaze needs a Cephalorectomy, then you just kicked Jed and others off this board. Do you really want to do that? > > > I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real… > ***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is the point of the discussion? > it’s a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most > here feel the same, > ***But it doesn't stop you from logging onto such a thread. So you've logged onto a thread that you consider to be a waste of time so that you don't comment on the subject of the thread but you choose some peripheral waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on, rather than the original subject of the thread. Talk about wasting time. You appear to be professional at it. > since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that > topic... I think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’. > > > > -m > ***I have the clue, you don't. For instance, why don't you post to Blaze that you're prepared to take him up on his offer of 40%? So that means you put $40 down for Blaze to match with $60, to make $100 that will be donated to a LENR-honorable organization such as MFMP or LENR-CANR.org. For grins, you can say that "Rossi being real" will be measured by the vote of vorticians within 10 days of the receipt of the TIP report we all anticipate. If Vorticians vote that it is a positive for Rossi, then Rossi Is Real. If Vorticians vote that it is a negative for Rossi, then Rossi is a scam artist or something else. Let us see how Blaze squirms off that deal, which is far from the 10:1 odds originally offered with a $5000 pot. Or is all this stuff a buncha waste-of-time bullshit that a nanny-state intervener such as yourself would consider to be "below him"? > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit > > > > If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him. It's his sandbox. In the > meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it. > > If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, > go ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal > attacks that you'd invoke the name of the High One. You''re the one trying > to act like the parent here. > > Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual* > subject at hand. After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his > *own* thread. > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint > wrote: > > All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they > want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our > govt does enough of that already. > > I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all > Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t imply he’s got his head > in dark places. > > > > >“The "rules" bend under such circumstances.” > > I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless > idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal > attacks… its really pretty simple. > > > > -Mark > > > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM > > > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint > wrote: > > Kevin, > > Lighten up. > > ***NO. > > Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from > your pocket and every other vortician's pocket. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html > > > He even admits to wanting to take your money. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html > > The "rules" bend under such circumstances. "Lighten up" becomes "Get a > clue". > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
its practitioners are tangled up in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. ***In other words, it is the religion of scientism. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Danny Ross Lunsford < > antimatte...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > the people who ignored it or actively blocked it and suppressed its >> researchers are exposed for the charlatans they are. Their record will be >> empty string theory, vapid cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, >> science fiction universes, and ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. > > > I'm beginning to think what seems to have been a theoretical turn in the > past few decades is partly what is responsible for the negative reception > of the LENR research. Perhaps many physicists have lost their intuitive > sense of what goes on in the physical world. There are whole subfields of > physics that barely rely upon empirical evidence. Hypothetically speaking > you might be able to connect string theory back to something that can be > observed in the world, but even if this is true, it's so abstract that > we've failed to do so yet. Presumably there are famous physicists who have > devoted their careers to a subfield that has yet to give rise to observable > predictions. One almost gets the sense that normal branches of physics (as > opposed to theoretical physics) are second-class ones where scientists get > their hands too dirty. Much of physics gives the sense of essentially > being mathematics with additional fudge factor constants that you must > include in your equations from time to time. My impression of the field is > that it has become a little rarified, and its practitioners are tangled up > in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Be careful, Terry. Mark might key up on you with the ultimate YHWH reference post to put you on the defensive... even then, would such a thing contribute to Blaze pulling his head out of a "dark place"??? On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > > > If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark > places, go > > ahead and defend him > > Or her. > >
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
Several groups which tested the Rossi device found no heat, so they stopped the tests ahead of schedule. ***When you write your book, you'll hopefully explain which groups these are. And that eventuality of writing your book will be coming VERY soon in your perspective. Ya might as well get started now... And if I know you like I think I do... You've already started.So try to keep up. Time's a wastin'. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> Another reason to think the results are positive is that it is taking all >> this time. The researchers would have cut short the tests long ago and >> published. >> > > I meant that if there were no excess heat, they would have cut short the > tests after a few weeks. I suppose. > > Several groups which tested the Rossi device found no heat, so they > stopped the tests ahead of schedule. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
There is nothing wrong with abstraction if the abstractor (e.g. Einstein, Dirac, Pauli) knows what he's doing. The problem is, Witten and his crowd, Greene, Smolin, Susskind, Arkami-Hared, Tegmark, none of those people is any good at physics, despite how highly they may think of themselves. What they are good at is competition. Witten at least is a superb mathematician and does understand physics (e.g. critical phenomena) although he is no good at making it, because he has absolutely no physical intuition. He started life as an economist. The rest of that crowd strike me as not even very smart. They are good at taking tests. -drl --- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Danny Ross Lunsford wrote: the people who ignored it or actively blocked it and suppressed its researchers are exposed for the charlatans they are. Their record will be empty string theory, vapid cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, science fiction universes, and ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. I'm beginning to think what seems to have been a theoretical turn in the past few decades is partly what is responsible for the negative reception of the LENR research. Perhaps many physicists have lost their intuitive sense of what goes on in the physical world. There are whole subfields of physics that barely rely upon empirical evidence. Hypothetically speaking you might be able to connect string theory back to something that can be observed in the world, but even if this is true, it's so abstract that we've failed to do so yet. Presumably there are famous physicists who have devoted their careers to a subfield that has yet to give rise to observable predictions. One almost gets the sense that normal branches of physics (as opposed to theoretical physics) are second-class ones where scientists get their hands too dirty. Much of physics gives the sense of essentially being mathematics with additional fudge factor constants that you must include in your equations from time to time. My impression of the field is that it has become a little rarified, and its practitioners are tangled up in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit
If, as Carver Mead believes, the magnetic vector potential turns out to be not only physical but essential for coherent thinking about the physical, Oliver Heaviside's contribution will be thrown into question as it was he, more than anyone else, that discounted Maxwell's insistence that it was physical (which would have directed 19th century physics to quantum theory) rather than a mere mathematical artifact. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Lennart Thornros wrote: > > >> I think you guys are on to what I call the difference between an >> entrepreneur (a very misused word) and not an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs >> are fearless about new things. However to be a successful entrepreneur you >> need to be logical and the hardest . . . >> > > Yeah. One caution though. A personality is not unified. A person can > boldly accept change in one aspect of life, but reject it in another. > Perhaps the best example of that was Franklin Roosevelt. He was > conservative and he loved traditions, yet he was also innovative, bold and > willing to try anything. Martin Fleischmann used to say, "Stan and I are > painfully conventional people." He meant it. In many ways, they were. > > Oliver Heaviside was one of the boldest and most unconventional physicists > in history. His personal life was the opposite. He held one job for a few > years, and then spent the rest of his life at home. He was a recluse, > following routines, never marrying. Perhaps he needed to hang on to dull > routine to counterbalance his bold exploration of the unknown. > > I myself like to do the same thing every day, like clockwork, living a bit > like a monk. I eat pretty much the same foods, and go to the same places > for vacation. Quiet and boring places. I would make a good teacher because > I do not mind repeating myself. I loathe taking any kind of unnecessary > risk, such as driving faster than the speed limit. On the other hand, I > have spent decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars on cold fusion and > I have absolutely nothing to show for it -- not a milligram of success! But > no regrets. I would do it again without hesitation. If I live another 20 > years still capable of it, I will be doing it the last day of my life, even > if I am certain there is no hope of success. > > I am with Winston Churchill on this. As he said in 1941: ". . . never give > in, never give in, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large > or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense." > > > http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/103-never-give-in > > And Édith Piaf: "Non, je ne regrette rien." > > Regarding life's Important Decisions and Turning Points, I agree with > Satchel Paige: "Don't look back; something might be gaining on you." > > - Jed > >
[Vo]:BICEP2 results busted, inflation called scientifically meaningless
This made my decade - Paul Steinhardt with the coup de grace no less! So where is the rapturous 2nd video of the reporter talking to Linde again, this time informing him that the "experiment" (it's not an experiment, it's an observation) is cooked? It's just beyond description how utterly awful all this is. There is no real looking, only bullshitting. They might as well use the telescopes and instruments to peek into the neighbors' windows. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ -drl --- "I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin
