Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:31:43 -0700:
Hi,

Try creating 2 volts over a gap that is stuffed with a metal powder i.s.o.
air, let alone 10 V.

>Robin--
>
>The voltage may be an intermittent voltage like in a spark plug.  The 
>current is low but the transient voltage is what is required to initiate the 
>LENR.  Spark plugs in cars develop 20,000 volts as you probably know.  I 
>have been shocked may times by such voltage sources.
>
>I guessed that the Quark wafer design made use of positive and negative 
>plates to collect either H- or H+, electrons and/or positrons.  I would 
>guess that the mean free path of an energetic positron would be on the order 
>of a similar energetic electron.  This would be several microns, I believe, 
>before a reaction with an electron might occur.
>
>Rossi noted that the Quark-X produced 1/2 thermal energy (maybe from .511 
>Mev radiation) and 1/2 direct electrical output.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: Roarty, Francis X
>Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 6:55 AM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?
>
>Robin the 100kev might be an effect of direct current taking multipaths thru 
>metal powders loaded with H ions - he doesn't say he is using a 100kv power 
>supply.. [snip] "4 - a generator of direct current connected with a cathode 
>and an anode to accelerate the electrons" [/snip] I am thinking micro spark 
>gap circuits formed of powder grains and gas ions.
>
>Fran
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 5:43 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or 
>both?
>
>In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:15:22 -0400:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>
>I wouldn't put too much stock in this. The metal parts are likely to short 
>out a
>100 kV voltage supply.
>
>> From the lenr-forum.com
>>Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?
>>
>>"All replicators should pay attention to Rossi's provisional US-patent
>>61/999,582, filing-date: August 01, 2014. Provisional patents are not
>>published at USPTO but another site published a copy of this patent
>>which contains the following description:
>>
>> "In a reactor are put nickel powders, hydrides at a pressure of 3-6
>>bars an a temperature of 400-600 Celsius, AND AT ONE SIDE OF THE REACTOR
>>IS PUT AN ANODE, AT THE OPPOSITE A CATHODE, so that electrons are
>>accelerated up to 100 keV, ..."
>>
>>At the ends of the reactor are an anode and a cathode!!!
>>
>>"4 - a generator of direct current connected with a cathode and an
>>anode to accelrate the electrons"
>>
>>So Rossi is using DC to initiate (and maybe control) the reaction. (And
>>possibly uses the anode and cathode for direct extraction of electric
>>energy after the reaction occured - ECatX.)"
>>
>>https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3183-Rossi-s-missing-secret-or-E-CatX-description-or-both/?postID=17802#post17802
>>
>>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:55:33 +:
Hi,

I stand by my statement.

>Robin the 100kev might be an effect of direct current taking multipaths thru 
>metal powders loaded with H ions - he doesn't say he is using a 100kv power 
>supply.. [snip] "4 - a generator of direct current connected with a cathode 
>and an anode to accelerate the electrons" [/snip] I am thinking micro spark 
>gap circuits formed of powder grains and gas ions.
>
>Fran  
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 5:43 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or 
>both?
>
>In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:15:22 -0400:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>
>I wouldn't put too much stock in this. The metal parts are likely to short out 
>a
>100 kV voltage supply.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Appeal to colleagues, NEW SURVEY!, discussions, info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-26-2016-lenr-appeal-new-survey.html

 published with delay under stress due to personal problems,
too much self-censoring.
All the best to you, friends!
peter..
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Lennart Thornros]

I think you guys have many good suggestions so I am not dissing what you
say.
However, IMHO there are a couple of factors that makes your excellent ideas
hard in today's society.
First we have patent laws combined with greed from misc. academical
organizations trying to get some edge over each other. They all are funded
by us tax payers but internal competition makes the utilization of new
findings slow and tedious - inefficient if you prefer.
Then we have the fact that most funding is coming from the same place. That
means; 'old boys network', brown-nosing and corruption (mostly as 'if I
scratch your back you will scratch  mine'). will have at least as much
influence over where funds are allocated as result. (See fusion.)
Another thing that I am sure is an obstacle is that there is no
organization with purpose involved. If ideas were developed by teams under
leadership of people good at organize and lead rather than  scientists a
more efficient progress can be accomplished. My experience is that
leadership often goes to the sciebtist with the best knowledge of the
subject. That is a poor solution. Rather let the scientist handle what he
is best at and leave the leadership to a pro (who does not need to know
anything about the topic).

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Ruby--
>
> You noted:
> ”Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect
> to see,
> so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.”
>
> Not to drive a dead horse, but I would not call the “many” that “see only
> what they expect to see” scientists.  That state of mind keeps them from
> the rolls of scientists, IMHO.
>
> For humans in general your comment that “so the obvious to one is not the
> obvious to another” is very true IMHO.  This agreement coming from  being
> married to a good human for 50 years in July of this year.
>
> To reach your goal of consensus on basic ideas, you need a committee of
> three true scientists that are all independent (never worked together) to
> select two committees of scientists (not too many—maybe 7 or 9) who are to
> develop a consensus—100% agreement on the basics. The 3 original selecting
> persons should oversee the working committees actions and discussions and
> by consensus of the 3, replace any working committee members not using
> scientific process in deliberation, or not able to grasp the obvious.
>
> The results of the committees should be compared at the end of the work.
> The 3 member selection committee should be responsible for identifying
> reasons why the two separate consensus of basics were different, if they
> are not the same.  This would be accomplished by questioning the two
> committees as to the rational of the basic ideas set forth, and listening
> to the comments/responses of one  committee to the others consensus.
>
> The committee of three would then be responsible to establish their own
> consensus of basics ideas—theories.
>
> I worked in an organization for 18 years where a similar tactic was used
> to develop a working technology.  The competition among committees (groups
> of engineers and scientists) was an important factor in a quality
> consensus.  However, there was generally only one or two individual
> technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the
> final decision about the theory.
>
> Bob
>
> *From:* Ruby 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
>
>
> Thank you Bob for clarifying that.
> I did not know what you meant.
> I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition!
>
> Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect
> to see,
> so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.
>
> LENR is unique in that there is no consensus on what is happening from the
> community itself even after almost three decades of research data.
> there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in
> to form the theory.
> Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
> So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?
>
> I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would
> pledge to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would
> form the core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..
>
> Ruby
>
>
> On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
> I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the
> obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s
> paper, and  some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct
> scientific action.
>
> I repeat my earlier comment—“It is 

Re: [Vo]:OT new state of water molecule discovered in confinement

[Roarty, Francis X]

Eric, for me it is just one more connection to quantum effects realized at the 
macro level, this article relates to the surprise discovery that nano pore 
filters move water faster than larger standard pore filters. It is based on the 
same suppression geometry implicated in Casimir effect and the reciprocal 
theory that microwave energy in the EM drive can produce Unruh radiation when 
resonated between 2 unlike reflectors. They all share this vacuum manipulation 
anomaly that unbalances the spatial reciprocity of action and reaction to 
include virtual particles becoming real. The EM drive, drives the geometry with 
microwave energy to push against the virtual pairs while Casimir effect, nano 
tubes and confined water molecules harness nano geometry to suppress the flow 
of virtual pairs thru our 3d plane – and IMHO also cause a small portion of the 
vp to become real which accounts for the anomalous heat and excess energy 
making nano geometry an energy source. Similar to the EM authors explanation of 
Unruh radiation being at the heart of the EM drive I have based a relativistic 
interpretation of Casimir effect on Jan Naudts 2005 paper on relativistic 
hydrogen. I believe the shorter vacuum wavelengths we see between Casimir 
plates actually appear longer from a local perspective inside the region where 
they contract as Naudts suggests for the hydrino…relativistically. All these 
diverse anomalous effects are whispering a connection to virtual particle 
manipulation and I don’t believe it is a coincidence.
Fran

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:OT new state of water molecule discovered in 
confinement

From the article:

"At low temperatures, this tunneling water exhibits quantum motion through the 
separating potential walls, which is forbidden in the classical world," said 
lead author Alexander Kolesnikov of ORNL's Chemical and Engineering Materials 
Division. "This means that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of the water molecule 
are 'delocalized' and therefore simultaneously present in all six symmetrically 
equivalent positions in the channel at the same time. It's one of those 
phenomena that only occur in quantum mechanics and has no parallel in our 
everyday experience."

I feel like this is a counterintuitive understanding of the condition of the 
water molecule that arises from the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum 
mechanics.  Hopefully I'm not misusing the term in applying it to this context.

Eric



On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
> wrote:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160422163157.htm