Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?
Thank you guys for the real stories of ethical problems in professional life/ Actually it is a great grey area between the good and evil, honest and dishonest, the immediately useful -harming on long term and its opposite. I will publish just now an essay about such problems, protection against threats for the E-cat. Re Randy in his case it is valid the old saying of Edison about methods that do not work. He has to solve an almost impossible technological problem. The best we can do, I think is to wish him success. Peter On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Quantum Mechanics is not well developed in relation to the explanations that it can provide to explain all the vast array of weird things that seem to be occurring at and below the atomic level. Once LENR is taken seriously, I expect it to be a gold mine for research into quantum weirdness in which LENR is so blessed. On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Axil, You seem to be implying that CQM is essentially religion. You also seem to be implying that BLP is run by the equivalent of another L. Ron Hubbard. It seems to me that one might be able to imply that the same thing has already happened to how standard quantum mechanics seems to be both revered and protected by some of its own cult members. Look at what Wikipedia has had to say about BLP. I will grant you that I do see the beginnings of a cult following gestating nicely over at the SCP. And that worries me. But I wouldn't pin such idiocy at Dr. Mills foot. He strikes me as caring less about being perceived as a cult leader. I think the doctor is far more interested in vindicating his CQM theory. If one therefore wants to imply that CQM is Dr. Mills true religion... yes I will not argue the finer points of that, but only to a point. The last time I looked at Dr. Mills' bible ...My goodness, I've never seen so many mathematical equations. Long protracted equations. Hey! Where's all the knowing and all the begetting that should be happening within the pages of a real bible. I see no sacrifices nor any god fearing smoteing going on either. It's just a coincidence that Dr. Mills might seem to bare a slight resemblance to Charlton Heston! Actually, I think Dr. MIlls' text is rather dry. Quite boring if you ask me. Pin the folly of wanting to become a cult follower on the stupidity and naivety of the individuals who simply want to become cult follower. Look, I realize I'm not an expert on most matters pertaining to quantum physics. All I can say is that... well, let me put it this way: I find it tantalizing that a theory that some on this discussion group seem to feel is actually a religion attempting to be cloak its true nature under the camouflage of a laboratory coat was nevertheless capable of predicting the accelerated expansion of the universe before astronomy had proven this was actually happening. I'm under the impression that standard quantum mechanics, as it is currently understood, didn't seem have much to say on the matter, for or against. Ok... I'm done for the night. Back to the beehive tomorrow. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
Dear friends, I have just published; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html It is mainly about T of SWOT; many of the readers (me included) will not like everything I say here. But reality will accept it, how is possible to respect ALL the good rules in a very VUCA situation? Can you educate your children without fairy tales? Inventors have to think realistically, act pragmatically and communicate diplomatically. Let's try to understand what does this mean in this case.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain due to the lower COP). Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for which adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially ignored this in his recent book. In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but were summarized by Yoshino to others there. Here are some main talking points. 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. There is no helium in the ash. 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a Mills catalyst (nickel) 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a mesh-like blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not active. 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important information which may indicate the presence of neutrons. 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the Oppenheim Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been seen possibly more than two. 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel wire in a plasma. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
The LENR reaction always happens in a plasma that has been produced by electrical discharge, but when water is present, the plasma is quenched and it cools quickly. This removes the SPP solition before it can properly develop to the proper strength. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain due to the lower COP). Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for which adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially ignored this in his recent book. In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but were summarized by Yoshino to others there. Here are some main talking points. 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. There is no helium in the ash. 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a Mills catalyst (nickel) 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a mesh-like blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not active. 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important information which may indicate the presence of neutrons. 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the Oppenheim Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been seen possibly more than two. 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel wire in a plasma. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
To clear up one detail, there is a looming question: “why is this Mizuno device not a more sophisticated version of the Farnsworth Fusor?” It can be acknowledged that there are similarities. The Fusor is a deuterium plasma device which can employ nickel as the electrode (tungsten is usually chosen). However, plasma contact with the electrode is avoided, and there is convergence in a target zone in the Fusor … and the electrode surface area would be about 10^6 times lower while the voltage is much higher. Moreover, the Fusor is hot fusion. And it is thousands of times below breakeven, and produces no significant heat at all. Tritium and helium-3 are created, but hydrogen is not transmuted from deuterium, and gamma rays are emitted. Typically a well constructed Fusor will produce around 10,000 neutrons per second and the average energy released is 3.5 MeV per fusion event. This is about 50,000 times below breakeven. In contrast, Mizuno’s version essentially is converting deuterium into hydrogen at thermal levels which are 100,000 times greater than a Fusor, yet with no gamma radiation. The neutron production is unknown. _ Final note: Mizuno saw 108 MJ of gain over 30 days at COP of 1.9 - his net output was about 8 MJ per day, on average. For Roulette et al, the next best result in the history of deuterium LENR, there was 294 MJ is net output over 152 days at COP of 1.5, or about 2 MJ per day but with less actual net gain than Mizuno (less than 108 MJ of gain due to the lower COP). Therefore, the Mizuno experiment is about 4 times more robust in net energy than the best prior result in LENR for which adequate data exists but over 600% more robust, based on net gain. The next step for this ground-breaking experiment is the analysis, and then the implications – which will be controversial. That is why there has been scarcely a peep from many “experts” on this paradigm shift in LENR. They do not like the implications and especially not Storms, who essentially ignored this in his recent book. In fact, the results overturn several pillars of entrenched thinking which are lingering from the “cold fusion era”; but some of the conclusions may hinge on the final radiation results, which were not presented at MIT but were summarized by Yoshino to others there. Here are some main talking points. 1) It took 24 years of trying to greatly improve Pd-D results, yet the main reasons for the vast improvement are simple and two-fold. Switch from palladium to nickel wire as the cathode and run the experiment as a plasma. 2) The SEM image after activation shows no evidence of Storms’ active “cracks”. The Ni surface is suggestive of micron-sized spheres, possibly formed by adsorption of hydrogen, which result is highly suggestive of Rossi’s description of his nickel surface. i.e. “sphericules”. 3) This experiment is devastating to Storm’s theory in several ways. There is no helium in the ash. 4) This experiment is problematic for Mills recent demo, since Mizuno tried heavy water vapor and found it did not work in the presence of a Mills catalyst (nickel) 5) The nickel is said to be in the form of a “mesh” but in fact, consists of 200 meters of .2 mm nickel wire which is arranged in a mesh-like blob, reminiscent of a ladies hairdo from the sixties. 6) While H2 shows irregular gain, D2 is more active and D2O in not active. 7) The experiment was monitored for radiation, yet the information was omitted. This information is critical to understanding. Yoshino told Ahern that no gamma radiation was seen. Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. 8) Given the long history between Jed Rothwell and Mizuno, it is hoped that Jed and vortex will be the first to see this very important information which may indicate the presence of neutrons. 9) If there are significant neutrons, this indicates that the Oppenheim Phillips effect could be part of the gain, yet since H2 was also gainful, neutrons probably indicate that two different gainful effects have been seen possibly more than two. 10) Neutrons have been the desired goal (to find) since 1989. In short, this could be the final fulfillment of everything which PF wanted to demonstrate but never could – reliable excess heat and neutrons. 11) Too bad PF did not think of the simple expedient of going to nickel wire in a plasma. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. Secondly, however, the Mizuno reaction releases approximately two protons for every deuteron, not one as in stripping. That would imply that the neutron decays, instead of being absorbed in nickel or something similar which gives about twice the number of gas molecules as before. Also – there is a long half-life associated with nickel following neutron activation. This will be easy to characterize, for Mizuno - if that is what is happening. From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Slide 47 shows a significant difference. Seems fairly well coordinated, actually, since there was stable gas quantity with no heat, and the excess heat came with excess hydrogen. Which slide shows no correlation ?? From: Eric Walker Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Jack, Take this quiz and get back to me... http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/11/21/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-who-is-smarter-than-einstein/ On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com wrote: Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance in these cavities but could the macro shape of the reactor itself be part of the puzzle as to why some experiments are so hard to reproduce? Maybe it is time to shotgun the parameters in our search for results with identical powders in a dozens of reactor shapes and even the pill used to form the powders in different shapes. I have always posited that the anomalous energy comes from plying different forces at different scales of nature against herself to perform work on the gas atoms loaded into the metal lattice or powders- previously I thought the quantum averages of geometrical regions that form a tapestry were in opposition to the “randomness” of gas motion.. that is to say random motion becomes usable energy when you can restrain any spatial axis on a small enough scale –which physics teaches us you can’t in the normal 3d isotropy –BUT- Paradox twins are an example of 2 different inertial frames where the 3D spatial frames are rotated from each other causing time dilation from each other’s perspective, IF an equal difference in vacuum pressure can be created via suppression in the nano regions created by these powders then you have random motion that is spatially unbalanced allowing for random motion to be harnessed / preventing cancellation in our dimension but changing the vector of virtual particles exiting our plane. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
AT THE QUANTUM CASIMIR PLASMA-BREACH BORDER: We are indeed observing QUASI-TESSERACT shifts in nano-geometry which are profoundly RE-CONSTRUCTING atomic structures. . . sudden seemingly paradoxical isotopic rearrangements of atomic structures indicate this. . . Wild card John Hutchison/Hutchison effect reported this phemonenon at a macro level at the eye-gate/plasma-breach/centre of his GIGI-HIGH EM-TORUS FIELDS; Your have accuratedly surmised that this is ONE SINGLE(quasi-paradoxical. a la' nano macro Tesseract-Casimir-MOBIUS INSIDE-OUTING); HENSE this LENSING AFFECT is contiguous and pervasive albiet currently somewhat mystifying. Although these NOT exactly symetrical-lensing translation effects of Tachyonic Transdimensional Super Fluid ingressing Space-Time-Normal GATING through via the Casimir-Plasma-Breach Transtemporal Tesseract geometrics. As we clarify accurate modalities of THOSE PROFOUNDLY SHIFTING field-particle GEOMETRICS; Only then Casimir-Plasma-Breach Transdimensional/Transtemporal (twisting-stretching field mobius geometrics) ingress the TESSERACTING-transdiensional lensing eye-gate transition POINT of the AexoDark Tachyonic Super-Fluid LITERALLY BECOMING SPACE-TIME NORMAL Particle-Wave length Phenomenon. . . every atom is a mini-micro 'big-bang'' The Casimir micro-singularity effect is a Tesseract-Cavitation phenomenon. THIS IS QUITE LITERALLY the very BIG BANG eye-breach of Aexo-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid aka Hyper Space creating the Ovoid Space Time Normal Bubble that we are. . . the 'big-bang' process is Ubiquitus and ongoing and pervasive at nano to macro to cosmic to AexoDark Cosmic eg TACHYONIC SUPER FLUID aka HyperSpace.. The extant MACRO Plasma-Breach REACTORS use the Tesla fired Super-Conductor bagel-ring GYRO-CENTRIFIC/GIGA-EM-HyperDensity field/CENTRIFIC-GRAVIONIC Torus-Field that they generate to STIR parallel-adjacent Aexo-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid/HyperSpace to exploit these CASIMIR-TESSERACT plasma-breach HYPERGRAVIONIC transdimensional-transtemporal forces on a large scale. . . At the nano level you are speaking eloquently of; deciphering the micro Casimir-Tesseract-Mobius geometrec BALLET which is intrinsic and crucial to producing THE TRUE DREAM OF QUANTUM TORSION-ENTANGLEMENT COMPUTATION. . . for instance not to mention relatively nano-cold fusion. . . Where ever Tachyonic SuperFluid/Aexoplasma is ingressing into Space Time Normal this is COMPLETELY DO-ABLE. And this 'process' is the FUNDAMENTAL functional MODEL of virtually ALL ENERGY SYSTEMS. . . .whether within OVOID UNIVERSE Space Time Normal /or AexoDark Tachyonic SuperFluid HyperSpace aka VIRTUAL NO TIME//VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE. Hypothesizing that the ALL-ENERGY-SOURCE MEDIUM of the Super-M-Brane encompassing-CONTAINING-SUSTAINING the Torsion Tachyonic Super Fluiid ALL-SPECTRUM CARRIER WAVE is a contiguous-continuous 'sheet' of HYPERCOMPRESSED hyper-interacting-FRACTAL DATA CODE. . . That THIS DATA whenever dynamically focused(noded) and spontaneously-integrating should ALWAYS SPONTANEOUSLY INTERACT-THINK would necessarily be the basis of all CONSTRUCT-EXTENDED (built by man or any other sentients) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENSE eg VIRTUAL LIFE. . . RATHER THAN OUR BRAINS being hard wired to such a 'device' we would quickly learn to TORSION THOUGHT INTERFACE with our THINKING-EXPERIENCING-COMPUTATIONAL DEVICE'S. . . . . DREAMS ~;^) JHO On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com wrote: Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass' A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid. *Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK ENERGY Tachyonic Super Fluid parallel space is easier said than done since we have no WALDO to reach across the PLASMA BREACH whether at nano-level or at MACRO REACTOR LEVEL. . . AT THE CASIMIR BORDER On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S. [/snip] Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same difference in space time as exotic forms of hydrogen experience when suppressed by changes in nano geometry / lattice defects or tapestries of cavities formed when bulk conductive nano powders are packed together. Some day the relationship between the Casimir formula and the time dilation formula will be proved… I also think the magnetic field will be corralled into this such that the missing parameter in these anomalous claims is finally visible.. I think the Sawyer endorsement by NASA may mean there is a magnetic/geometrical component that we are missing –Many researchers endorse resonance
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. I take it that deuterium stripping is an all-or-nothing thing. Either the neutron is stripped off and added to the large nucleus, or it is not, in which case you get the equivalent of an inelastic collision. I.e., there are no messy, partial stripping reactions. Whether or not this assumption is correct, I'm guessing that this is the angle that Yoshino and Mizuno are pursuing. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. I take it that deuterium stripping is an all-or-nothing thing. Oppenheimer-Phillips may be all-or-nothing - but not the other four methods of deuteron disintegration (aka stripping): photofission, beta decay, spin-flipping and spallation. IOW there are five ways to skin this cat, and most of them were mentioned before the end of 1989 in the context of cold fusion (as an alternative explanation to avoid the big gamma ray of helium fusion). Either the neutron is stripped off and added to the large nucleus, or it is not, in which case you get the equivalent of an inelastic collision. I.e., there are no messy, partial stripping reactions. There is plenty of mess. The proton and neutron in deuterium are comparatively *loosely bound.* In fact, if you flip the spin of only one of the nucleons, not both – then the deuteron falls apart. On paper this could be done magnetically. That is part of the allure of nanomagnetism. Only one other stable isotope in the entire periodic table is as loosely bound as deuterium, and the “tail” of the distribution for stripping or disintegration (inverted tail) is very long. Many reference say that deuterium can beta decay directly (~1.5 MeV), but is so statistically rare that it is seldom mentioned. The real difference from all other nuclei is that the enormous distance between the two nucleons, not to mention the low electric charge. Heisenberg's door is open wide for weak and EM interactions to supply the missing energy (recoverable) to induce a stimulated but seemingly spontaneous decay of the deuteron. But nanomagnetism is the most alluring prospect. Whether or not this assumption is correct, I'm guessing that this is the angle that Yoshino and Mizuno are pursuing. Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of gas molecules. More likely, it could be both partly true and incomplete. This subject is most interesting in light of the inclusion of those slides – which give one the impression that Yoshino put them into the document to entice readers to come to the big show-and-tell in November. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Galactic Bubbles
* * * EINSTEIN'S EPIPHANY ILLUSTRATED:TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID Transdimensional Relativity EPIPHANY. . . . TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID is HYPERSPACE=DarkEnergy/DarkMatter. . . 'Dark Matter /or Dark Energy' is semantics, distinction without difference ONE AND THE SAME. GALACTIC AXIAL 'LIGHT-BULBS 'aka transdimensionally ingress AEXODARK(DarkEnergy) TACHYONIC SUPER FLUID. * * * EINSTEIN'S PREDICTED NOW PROVEN TRANSDIMENSIONAL RELATIVITY: Via the transdimensional Einstein-Rosen portal of our Galactic-Hub Singularity these reported 'Light-Bulb-Lobes of ingress TACHYONIC HyperGravionic SUPER-FLUID of Axial Ingress Jets draw themselves/constrict themselves into HyperGravity Field lobes via their own hyper-speed/hyper gravionic-dense Aexoplasmonic field . . aka phenomenal HYPER VORTEX-SPIN constantly observed ad infinitum. The HUBS of ALL GALAXIES are transdimensional balance grey-hole SINGULARITIES. . . ALL Singularities are Einstein-Rosen transdimensional torus eye point-bridges connecting Tachyonic Super-Fluid Hyper-Space to our Ovoid Universe Space-Time-Normal. . . Per Einstein: Space Time Normal 'M' ass =EC^2 THUSLY accelerate Galactic-Atomic 'Mass' @ EC^2 to Light-Speed which then Singularity Ingress AexoDarkEnergy HYPERSPACE Tachyonic Super Fluid at the BASE AMBIENT ENERGY LEVEL of AE-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE/VIRTUAL NO TIME @ AE=EC^3. . . . On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7905.pdf In the summary, the microwave and gamma radiation is caused by the interaction of protons and electrons in a fairly weak magnetic field. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:48 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Despite extensive analysis, Fermi bubbles defy explanation Aug 01, 2014 (Phys.org) —Scientists from Stanford and the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory have analyzed more than four years of data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, along with data from other experiments, to create the most detailed portrait yet of two towering bubbles that stretch tens of thousands of light-years above and below our galaxy. The bubbles, which shine most brightly in energetic gamma rays, were discovered almost four years ago by a team of Harvard astrophysicists led by Douglas Finkbeiner who combed through data from Fermi's main instrument, the Large Area Telescope. The new portrait, described in a paper that has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal, reveals several puzzling features, said Dmitry Malyshev, a postdoctoral researcher at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology who co-led on the analysis. For example, the outlines of the bubbles are quite sharp, and the bubbles themselves glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over their colossal surfaces, like two 30,000-light-year-tall incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy... http://phys.org/news/2014-08-extensive-analysis-fermi-defy-explanation.html
Re: [Vo]:Galactic Bubbles
Jack, Do you use a Markov Chain-based generator? Eric On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan alset9te...@gmail.com wrote: * * * EINSTEIN'S EPIPHANY ILLUSTRATED:TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID Transdimensional Relativity EPIPHANY. . . . TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID is HYPERSPACE=DarkEnergy/DarkMatter. . . 'Dark Matter /or Dark Energy' is semantics, distinction without difference ONE AND THE SAME. GALACTIC AXIAL 'LIGHT-BULBS 'aka transdimensionally ingress AEXODARK(DarkEnergy) TACHYONIC SUPER FLUID. * * * EINSTEIN'S PREDICTED NOW PROVEN TRANSDIMENSIONAL RELATIVITY: Via the transdimensional Einstein-Rosen portal of our Galactic-Hub Singularity these reported 'Light-Bulb-Lobes of ingress TACHYONIC HyperGravionic SUPER-FLUID of Axial Ingress Jets draw themselves/constrict themselves into HyperGravity Field lobes via their own hyper-speed/hyper gravionic-dense Aexoplasmonic field . . aka phenomenal HYPER VORTEX-SPIN constantly observed ad infinitum. The HUBS of ALL GALAXIES are transdimensional balance grey-hole SINGULARITIES. . . ALL Singularities are Einstein-Rosen transdimensional torus eye point-bridges connecting Tachyonic Super-Fluid Hyper-Space to our Ovoid Universe Space-Time-Normal. . . Per Einstein: Space Time Normal 'M' ass =EC^2 THUSLY accelerate Galactic-Atomic 'Mass' @ EC^2 to Light-Speed which then Singularity Ingress AexoDarkEnergy HYPERSPACE Tachyonic Super Fluid at the BASE AMBIENT ENERGY LEVEL of AE-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE/VIRTUAL NO TIME @ AE=EC^3. . . .
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of gas molecules. More likely, it could be both partly true and incomplete. If Yushino's and Muzuno's findings are not artifact, I'm thinking OP might be going on. I don't have a clear sense of whether it would be the primary source of heat. If there is OP, there will also be fast protons, which might cause spallation reactions with nearby deuterons: http://i.imgur.com/cATIdcT.png Note that if this happens, and OP is the main source of the heat, such spallation reactions destroy the fuel. Also, there would be lots of ~ 180 keV (and higher) beta particles from the decay of neutrons and neutron-rich radioisotopes, and possibly gammas from radiative capture. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Slide 47 shows a significant difference. A qualitative increase is seen in M/e=2 species in both the excess heat run and the control on both slides 46 and 47. We only have two trials, so we don't have a sense of what the trend was over a large number of trials. On slide 46 the control run does not go beyond 1000 ks, so we don't know what the curve would look like beyond that for the control. There does appear to be a significant difference in the total volume of gas, however. Presumably this was a pattern that was seen over the course of several control and excess heat runs. I'm hoping a writeup will be provided that will clarify some of these questions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
*However, I will declare a possibility: continued research into PdD *will* resolve the mystery of cold fusion. It could happen accidentally at almost any time, some researcher could stumble across evidence that leads to the solution.* The neutron is transmuted into a proton by pions that are instantiated out of the vacuum by a strong magnetic field. That must be the way that 2D (two protons and two neutrons) becomes 4 protons. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically rather low. Secondly, however, the Mizuno reaction releases approximately two protons for every deuteron, not one as in stripping. That would imply that the neutron decays, instead of being absorbed in nickel or something similar which gives about twice the number of gas molecules as before. Also – there is a long half-life associated with nickel following neutron activation. This will be easy to characterize, for Mizuno - if that is what is happening. *From:* Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have been seen. I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted. ***Would that be the Asymmetrical Thrust Capacitor proposal that I submitted? On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was not aware of Poher, but given that shouldn't Morton be considered a further and earlier verification of this effect? Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted. It might also be worth noting Piggot: http://www.rexresearch.com/piggott/piggott.htm On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s superconductor. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with Poher’s device, but nothing turns up to verify that, on a quick google search. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Poher Here is a technology that can unite all three phenomena… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequency From: Alain Sepeda this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)…he have good hint, no more... about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. David Roberson: I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the root of the thrust. Eric Walker wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-spa ce-drive http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf Here is what cavitation is producing. These are what Ken Shoulders also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced. ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR. HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation? Can a linear BEC form in gas simpler than in water? Isn't it possible for a spark to form a Luttinger Liquid linear BEC? And consider the endpoints of such a phenomenon: at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms! The reason it's so hard to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena connecting to each other: A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a sphericule. The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond our grasp to describe. Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces nanoparticle aggregations in which a BEC is carried. ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from? I've never heard of them before. What are they?
Re: [Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
There once was a reason for acronyms: lack of memory and time and space. But your computer has plenty of memory, it takes only a couple of seconds to push out the definition of SWOT, and there's plenty of space. WTFPA? WNJPOTOWRTTFA? TANSTAAFL. GWTP. WSL? WUNLMA On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear friends, I have just published; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html It is mainly about T of SWOT; many of the readers (me included) will not like everything I say here. But reality will accept it, how is possible to respect ALL the good rules in a very VUCA situation? Can you educate your children without fairy tales? Inventors have to think realistically, act pragmatically and communicate diplomatically. Let's try to understand what does this mean in this case.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?
A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode material that carried the spark.. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf Here is what cavitation is producing. These are what Ken Shoulders also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced. ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR. HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation? Can a linear BEC form in gas simpler than in water? Isn't it possible for a spark to form a Luttinger Liquid linear BEC? And consider the endpoints of such a phenomenon: at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms! The reason it's so hard to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena connecting to each other: A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a sphericule. The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond our grasp to describe. Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces nanoparticle aggregations in which a BEC is carried. ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from? I've never heard of them before. What are they?
Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A spark produces a plasma, whenever a plasma cools as it must eventually do, at a minimum, it produces nanoparticles out of the vaporized electrode material that carried the spark.. ***When a plasma COOLs That is utterly significant. It is only under relatively cool conditions that a BEC forms. So when the plasma cools, it forms a (linear) BEC, atoms come together and fuse sometimes and when they do, by the nature of BECs, their output energy is dissipated by 1/N the number of atoms involved in the BEC. On top of that, the spark environment becomes a (linear) accelerator, pushing particles such as protons straight into the opposing walls of the crack of the metal matrix, thereby generating transmutations, fission, nuclear heat from other products. Perhaps it's even an asymmetrical thrust capacitor, as described upthread. Think about it: A v-shaped crack is very similar to a capacitor in certain dimensions, and at the extremes of those dimensions you'd see very different behavior. Ed Storms wanted to move the discussion out from the interior of metal hydrydes into the surface where the laws of conservation of energy no longer apply. But cracks are a weak representation of laws of Physics no longer applying: The sparks ACROSS such cracks would be a perfect candidate for weird physics and laws of conservation of energy no longer applying, because plasma physics is incredibly weird to begin with. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf Here is what cavitation is producing. These are what Ken Shoulders also produced in spark discharge. Sparks in water always produce cavitation. Only cavitation in water produces gamma because no BEC can be produced. ***This strikes me as incredibly important because we've narrowed down the focus of discussion to sparks, BECs, gamma ray production and LENR. HOW is it that sparks in water always produce cavitation? Can a linear BEC form in gas simpler than in water? Isn't it possible for a spark to form a Luttinger Liquid linear BEC? And consider the endpoints of such a phenomenon: at each end would be a few microns of solid Ni or Pd encapsulating a linear formation of H or D atoms! The reason it's so hard to get our heads around it is that there are 2 kinds of phenomena connecting to each other: A 1dimensional Luttinger Liquid of atoms embedded within a matrix connected to a BEC forming inside of a spark across (Ed Storms's utterly important) crack or even just a sphericule. The TRANSITION between these 2 uncommon physical forms is completely beyond our grasp to describe. Sparks in a gas do not produce gamma because the spark produces nanoparticle aggregations in which a BEC is carried. ***Okay... where do these nanoparticle aggregations come from? I've never heard of them before. What are they?
[Vo]:The 5 states of matter
Currently we only have 5 known states of matter: Solid Liquid Gas Plasma Bose-Einstein Condensate It would make sense that something as unfathomable as LENR would occur as the newest least understood state of matter. Especially when plasma might be involved, and the situation occurs in a very special case of Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics. Are there other states of matter being postulated at this point? Some of the Zero Point Energy/Vaccuum/Aether stuff might apply, but it does not hold weight in mainstream physics. It strikes me that a combination of plasma physics and BECs (i.e., the formation of sparks and a linear Luttinger Liquid formation of a BEC inside a plasma) might seal this mystery.
Re: [Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
Right, Kevin! The definition of SWOT is clearly given in the first paragraph of the paper- have you read it? In management SWOT is a standard procedure a must.Each field of knowledge has its specific jargon, including abbreviations, acronyms. English is poly-semantic, the words have many meanings BTW, there are fine acronym- finders on the web. I have studied web-search for many years, from the old days when it was based on knowing the best sources and the fastest algorithms up to today when it's just the art of getting rid of the nasty intruding ads. NALOPKT, Peter.. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There once was a reason for acronyms: lack of memory and time and space. But your computer has plenty of memory, it takes only a couple of seconds to push out the definition of SWOT, and there's plenty of space. WTFPA? WNJPOTOWRTTFA? TANSTAAFL. GWTP. WSL? WUNLMA On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear friends, I have just published; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html It is mainly about T of SWOT; many of the readers (me included) will not like everything I say here. But reality will accept it, how is possible to respect ALL the good rules in a very VUCA situation? Can you educate your children without fairy tales? Inventors have to think realistically, act pragmatically and communicate diplomatically. Let's try to understand what does this mean in this case.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:New SWOT analysis of the E-cat
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Right, Kevin! The definition of SWOT is clearly given in the first paragraph of the paper- have you read it? ***Nope. I stopped short at undefined acronyms and the risk of downloading the latest virus. In management SWOT is a standard procedure a must. ***Yup. standard procedure, and typical nonsense associated with as-yet undefined acronyms. Each field of knowledge has its specific jargon, including abbreviations, acronyms. ***And yet, you're running into those who don't know your supposed jargon, so you have no business using it. English is poly-semantic, the words have many meanings ***But Jargons and Acronyms are Mono-Symantic:BJAAAMS. GAC. GWTP. BTW, there are fine acronym- finders on the web. ***And the few I tried did not decode your acronyms. Look how far down in this discussion we have gone without you defining your ridiculous acronym. Why should I read your paper? I have studied web-search for many years, from the old days when it was based on knowing the best sources and the fastest algorithms up to today when it's just the art of getting rid of the nasty intruding ads. ***Nice to know. And yet, after all that bullshit, you still didn't define your acronym. WSL? GWTP? FYATHYRIO. NALOPKT, Peter.. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: There once was a reason for acronyms: lack of memory and time and space. But your computer has plenty of memory, it takes only a couple of seconds to push out the definition of SWOT, and there's plenty of space. WTFPA? WNJPOTOWRTTFA? TANSTAAFL. GWTP. WSL? WUNLMA On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear friends, I have just published; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html It is mainly about T of SWOT; many of the readers (me included) will not like everything I say here. But reality will accept it, how is possible to respect ALL the good rules in a very VUCA situation? Can you educate your children without fairy tales? Inventors have to think realistically, act pragmatically and communicate diplomatically. Let's try to understand what does this mean in this case.. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
