Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will publish 
a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

Ludwik
==


On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:

> Ludwik, What’s your opinion of Fisher’s polyneutrons these days?
>  
> From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese
> 
>  
> I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team
>  is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to 
> send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.
>  
> Ludwik
> ===
>  
>  
> Ludwik Kowalski. 
>  
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> 
> 
> Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.
>  
> Ludwik
> =
>  
>  
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> 
> 
> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate 
> just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, 
> you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, 
> there were some gems hidden in there.
> 
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U
> 
> Bob Higgins
>  
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team
 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to send 
them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

Ludwik
===


Ludwik Kowalski. 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.
> 
> Ludwik
> =
> 
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> 
>> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
>> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google 
>> translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate 
>> version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and 
>> in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.
>> 
>> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
>> 
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 
>> 
>> Bob Higgins
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

Ludwik
=


On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the 
> trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate 
> just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, 
> you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, 
> there were some gems hidden in there.
> 
> For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 
> 
> Bob Higgins
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:33 PM, H LV wrote: " ... The softest x-rays are stopped 
by air."

Sorry for nit-picking. I would not say "stopped by air."  I would say "loose 
energy mostly by photoelectric and Compton collisions with oxygen and nitrogen 
atoms, in air." 

Ludwik
==

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Russ George  wrote:
>> If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead 
>> graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming 
>> anything is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of 
>> dead grad students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a 
>> dramatic nuclear process in hand :(
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>> H LV  wrote:
>>> 
 Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
 
 rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
 dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at
>>> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes
>>> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>>> 
>>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like
>>> delayed dissipation to me.
>>> 
>>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the
>>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for
>>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached
>>> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside
>>> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such
>>> changes to the cell during a test.
>>> 
>>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after
>>> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising
>>> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not
>>> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell
>>> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2
>>> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal 
>>> temperature.
>>> 
>>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It
>>> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I
>>> think that T1 and
>>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly
>>> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>>> 
>>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase
>>> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to
>>> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would
>>> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does
>>> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>> 
>> Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is 
>> T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
>> Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was 
>> warmed by a burst of xrays.
>> 
>> harry
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Sorry for my last comment; I was thought I were commenting on VORTEX's earlier 
post.
On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> 1) Suppose a wish list is composed, containing suggested technological 
> innovations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) robots. Would such a list be 
> useful to leaders of technology?
> 
> 2) My first  wish would be a computer operating system (OS) which allows for 
> at least three hundred of "human undo steps, no matter how many buttons were 
> pressed, and how many different applications are involved.
> 
> 3) And my second wish would be a mind-reading OS.
> 
> Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> 
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> 
>> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's 
>> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for chambers 
>> is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic would would 
>> allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then at least a via 
>> a small window... 
>> 
>> For example Perlucor is stable up to 1,600 c and 3-4x stronger than glass:
>> 
>> https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/
>> 
>> 
>> You'd think it'd be practical to fabricate a whole test chamber from this 
>> stuff..
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>> 
>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around 
>> time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4 
>> suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>> 
>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed 
>> dissipation to me.
>> 
>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with 
>> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might 
>> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during a 
>> test.
>> 
>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the 
>> power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a 
>> steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled 
>> off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a 
>> stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working 
>> correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
>> 
>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens 
>> at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and 
>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1 
>> continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>> 
>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown 
>> by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that 
>> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a 
>> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the 
>> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
>> 
>> - Jed
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Suppose a wish list is composed, containing suggested technological 
innovations for Artificial Intelligence (AI) robots. Would such a list be 
useful to leaders of technology?

2) My first  wish would be a computer operating system (OS) which allows for at 
least three hundreds of "human undo steps, no matter how many buttons were 
pressed, and how many different applications are involved.

3) And my second wish would be a mind read-reading OS.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)



On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:

> Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's 
> impervious to heat damage...  assuming the steel currently used for chambers 
> is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic would would 
> allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then at least a via 
> a small window... 
> 
> For example Perlucor is stable up to 1,600 c and 3-4x stronger than glass:
> 
> https://www.ceramtec.com/perlucor/
> 
> 
> You'd think it'd be practical to fabricate a whole test chamber from this 
> stuff..
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed
> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
> 
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at around time 
> 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes before.) T4 suddenly pops 
> up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
> 
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like delayed 
> dissipation to me.
> 
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached with 
> adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside temperature might 
> change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such changes to the cell during a 
> test.
> 
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after the power 
> is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising at a steady pace 
> for a while, then it would drop off. It would not have leveled off after 
> 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell continued in a stable 
> condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 was working correctly. So 
> there was no large increase in the internal temperature.
> 
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It happens 
> at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I think that T1 and 
> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly increased. T1 
> continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
> 
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase shown 
> by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to that 
> increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would be a 
> continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does after the 
> initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

P.S. 

Alpha particles from radioactive substances have energies below 8 MeV (range in 
air is about 7 cm)
Range of a typical alpha particles (say 6 MeV) is 5cm in air (about 2 inches).

Ludwik
==


On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:46 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Typical alpha particles do not penetrate human skin.
> 
> Ludwik
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Russ George wrote:
> 
>> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters 
>> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so 
>> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>>  
>> From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
>> To: vortex-l
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>>  
>> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by 
>> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it 
>> could produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of thousands 
>> of alpha particles as a by-product. 
>>  
>> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an 
>> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>>  
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Russ:
>>  
>>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this 
>> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking 
>> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize 
>> he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not 
>> because of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep 
>> during the experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this 
>> ... A few minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the 
>> Natural Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during 
>> the supposed burst...
>>  
>> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>>   
>>  
>> From: Russ George
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>>  
>> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does 
>> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that 
>> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, 
>> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would 
>> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than 
>> what the detector has recorded.
>>  
> 

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Typical alpha particles do not penetrate human skin.

Ludwik



On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Russ George wrote:

> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters 
> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so 
> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>  
> From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>  
> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by 
> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it could 
> produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of thousands of 
> alpha particles as a by-product. 
>  
> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an 
> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>  
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
> Hi Russ:
>  
>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this 
> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking 
> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize he 
> got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not because 
> of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep during the 
> experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few 
> minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
> Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the 
> supposed burst...
>  
> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>   
>  
> From: Russ George
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>  
> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
> infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
> both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
> long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely 
> the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the 
> detector has recorded.
>  

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

OTOH, presence of gamma rays (for example in an electrolytic cell), not due to 
natural background, is a convincing indicator of a nuclear effect, as often 
stated by others.

Ludwik

===



On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>  
> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
> 
> I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced 
> massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits 
> of chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation. That is the 
> opposite of "excellent."
> 
> What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks for 
> his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. Just 
> because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good metric, 
> since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is occurring.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Ludwik Kowalski]

This thread reminds me of my communist youth (In the USSR and In Poland):

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
We believed that in the next economic system, Communism,  people will be 
receiving goods "according to their needs, not according to their work.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

On Feb 16, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in 
> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more 
> education".
> 
> Yes. Education is a good thing, and I guess it can help with this problem, 
> but it cannot solve it. Lately, several smart people have shown that robots 
> and computers are likely to replace many jobs that call for high educational 
> attainment. Automation used to reduce manual labor only. Then it eroded 
> clerical jobs and cashiers. Now is likely to reduce labor across the board.
> 
> This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at it, 
> and how society chooses to respond.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Ludwik Kowalski]

The last sentence in Jed's post (in red below) is food for thought for 
theologians.


On Feb 14, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Patrick Ellul wrote:

> Jed,
> You seem to be passionate about this topic.
> I am too.
> Do you know of a collection of links to essays and studies regarding it?
> Regards.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> I am glad to see people paying attention to this issue. I hope it is not 
> politicized. Many people feel that that work is a moral issue; that 
> able-bodied people who do not work should not be given sustenance. This was a 
> reasonable view in the past, but now that robots are making rapid progress it 
> is gradually becoming unreasonable. We need to adjust morality to fit the 
> technology of our time. What is moral in one era may not be in the next.
> 
> - Jed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Patrick
> 
> www.tRacePerfect.com
> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
> The quickest puzzle ever! 

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Like Russ George (see below), I see no connection between our CMNS field and 
gravity waves.

Ludwik
=
On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

> It opens a complete different window on the Universe. 
> The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV show. 
> Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on. 
> Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the 
> universe. 
> We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM radiation. 
> For example that there are black holes systems with such large masses. 
> This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were formed. 
> And this is just the beginning. 
> The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big Bang. 
> While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very 
> early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about the 
> universe using EM radiation. 
> The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells 
> information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only 
> gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early. 
> 
> Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would give 
> us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together. 
> The consequences of this discovery are enormous. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George  wrote:
> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value 
> to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us 
> about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:at your mercy: please explain what BackEMF/Lenz Law is - and what would happen if a motor/generator could be built that is not subject to them?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Yes the analogy with the N3 law is worth emphasizing. A changing magnetic 
field, intercepted by a solenoid, creates an induced current, and vice versa--a 
changing electric current induces a magnetic field, through the solenoid.

 Ludwik 

===
On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:

> Lenz's law is the EM manifestation of Newton's 3rd law, conserving momentum, 
> and is simply the reciprocal / mutual self-induction of Faraday's law - 
> currents  generate magnetic fields, and vice versa; an induced current has 
> its own magnetic field which reacts back with the applied field.  It's an EMF 
> - the same force as voltage and the force between two magnets - and its sign 
> is always opposite to that of the applied motion or voltage.
> 
> As with Newton's 3rd law, many people miss why conservation of energy should 
> be dependent upon equal and opposite reactions.  The reason is that while 
> momentum scales linearly (P=MV), KE scales as half the square of velocity 
> (KE=1/2MV^2) - IOW compound interest on rising speed.  From a standing start, 
> we can accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s using just 1/2 a Joule of energy.  But to 
> then increase its speed by another 1 m/s will cost four times the initial 
> price - 2 J.  To bump it up again by a third meter per second will cost 4.5 
> J, and so on.  To get it from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, that same 1 m/s increment 
> of acceleration is gonna cost 9.5 Joules.
> 
> So why does the cost of KE square up like this?  It's because we have to 
> apply the same given force over an ever-increasing displacement, in order to 
> achieve the same consistent acceleration.  Alternatively, we could 
> progressively raise the applied force over a constant displacement increment, 
> but either way, the whole joules per meter/sec/kg game is one of massively 
> diminishing returns.
> 
> The reason is that the force is normally considered as applied from a second, 
> usually non-inertial (non-accelerating) frame - hence there's an ever rising 
> displacement between the thing you're accelerating and the thing it's pushing 
> against.  Hence KE rises as half the square of displacement / time.
> 
> But not so for momentum - since its very units and dimensions are mass times 
> velocity, it scales linearly.  Inertia is velocity-independent.
> 
> So an effective N3 violation would allow you to create energy by effectively 
> towing your reaction mass along for free.  Consider two adjacent 1kg masses 
> in free space connected via a perfectly elastic slack tether: an impulse is 
> applied between them, but because abracadabra, only one moves, until they 
> collide again; from either mass's frame of reference, that detail is 
> irrelevant - if we input 1 J of energy then that's all the system has, and 
> whether 1/2 a J resides in each mass or one has more than the other may seem 
> academic...
> 
> Until we repeat that input condition.  A second input Joule will raise the 
> net system energy to just 2J, no OU yet, but from an external FoR the net 
> system momentum has risen by a Joule or so... and as we repeat that input 
> condition, the net system momentum begins to square up, as KE is, by 
> definition, wont to do...  while internally, the relative velocity between 
> the oscillating masses never exceeds the linear sum of 1 J/kg/m/s inputs.  So 
> when the net system momentum reaches 10 m/s, we'll only have input 20 J of 
> work, but for a 100 J net system energy... IOW we've created 80 J from 
> dodging the usual 1/2V^2 premium.
> 
> So an N3 violation basically converts the dimensions of our input energy into 
> those of momentum - obviating the 1/2^2 accumulator.  We could accelerate a 1 
> kg mass to 10 m/s using just 5 J (1/2 J per m/s) - a speed at which it'll 
> have 50 J of KE from the stationary reference frame.
> 
> And exactly this same dynamic applies to EM systems - it's the same 
> fundamental symmetry; a Lenzless motor has a linear input energy for an 
> exponential output KE (RKE = 1/2 angular inertia times angular velocity 
> squared)... therefore beyond some (low) threshold of performance the output 
> energy integral punches diagonally straight through the flat-line input 
> integral, and keeps rising..
> 
> Essentially, accelerating a mass Lenzlessly would present no load upon the 
> power supply - only usual resistance losses remain, following Joule's 2nd law 
> for heat (Q=I^2RT where Q = J and I^2RT is current squared times resistance 
> times time)... calorimetry would thus show gains, while a passively 
> superconducting Lenzless reaction could summon infinite free momentum from 
> the vacuum without any incidental heating
> 
> EM or mechanical, the peak efficiency of an N3 break is a power of ten of 
> whatever's input.  In the admittedly spartan world of classical symmetry 
> breaks, an N3 exception would be the motherload.  Reactionless propulsion AND 
> free energy.
> 
> The source or sink is whatever manifests the 

Re: [Vo]:at your mercy: please explain what BackEMF/Lenz Law is - and what would happen if a motor/generator could be built that is not subject to them?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) As you know, inserting a bar magnet into a solenoid produces an electric 
current in that solenoid. The cause of such current  was named EMF. (which is 
the difference of potential, in Volts, not a force in Newtons).

2) Consider a simple circuit -- a battery, a switch, and a solenoid, connected 
in series. There is no magnet nearby. Suppose the switch is turned on suddenly. 
The current starts growing (but not as quickly as it would, if the solenoid 
were replaced by an ohmic resistor, of the same R as the solenoid). This 
slowing down  of the current is said to be due to the rising EMF Back EMF/ Lenz 
Law. 

3)  The Back EMF is said to be due due to rising electric current. The polarity 
of such EMF is always opposite to the polarity of the battery. That is why the 
word "Back" is used.

Ludwik

=

On Feb 7, 2016, at 3:34 PM, esa ruoho wrote:

> So uhh noone has anything to say about this?
> 
> ---
> | Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho |
> | http://lackluster.bandcamp.com | http://lackluster.org | 
> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com |
> | http://twitter.com/esaruoho | http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial |
> 
>> On 04 Feb 2016, at 23:59, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, I'm putting this out here, hoping for some sort of layman's explanation 
>> of these two things.
>> 
>> 1- What is Back EMF / Lenz Law?
>> 2- What would happen if a Motor-generator could be built that was immune to 
>> BackEMF/Lenz Law/ (sometimes referred to as Back Torque)?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---
>> http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // 
>> +358403703659 // 
>> skype:esajuhaniruoho // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/ // iMessage: 
>> esaru...@gmail.com //
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP demo video

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Yes indeed. Experimental data reported by Karabut and his coworkers (from Lutch 
laboratory in Russia) were spectacular, as summarized in: 

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/10lutch.html 

and in their later ICCF reports. Their apparatus was quite simple. 
Unfortunately, I am not aware of independent confirmations of their results in 
other laboratories. 

Ludwik
===


On Feb 5, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> My take on the curves shown after slide 49 is that they were showing 
> evolution of the spectrum.  As the machine and Ag vapor gets hotter and 
> hotter, the spectrum will begin to be dominated/overwhelmed by blackbody 
> radiation.  What is heated to those temperatures is Ag vapor.  I am not sure 
> exactly what you mean by "lasts very long at that temperature" (I presume you 
> mean doesn't melt), but I think the answer is that we are talking about a 
> vapor (gas) of Ag.  Plasmas are commonly at that temperature.
> 
> I said that the 10V source has a capability of generating up to 10eV effects 
> which correspond to 124nm minimum wavelength photons.  In the chart 49 you 
> can see the spectrum from the photons cut-off before reaching down to 124nm.  
> This spectrum is from the emissions of the silver+H2O in the arc before being 
> overwhelmed by the vapor around it that is very hot.  A 10eV electron or a 
> 124nm photon is not enough to ionize the inner shells of Ag, even if it is a 
> vapor.  Another thing to consider is drawing a Stephan-Boltzmann curve over 
> the UV portion of the radiation below that cuts off just before reaching down 
> to 124nm.  The temperature for such a curve would be about 6000K.  Even at 
> 6000K, you don't produce blackbody photons at 124nm.  My point here being 
> that the soft x-ray spectra are not explained by the temperature (even of 
> 6000K) or 10eV possible excitations from the 10V.
> 
> OTOH, Karabut has published papers about the generation of laser-like x-ray 
> photons in systems capable only of lower energy transitions.  It could be a 
> hydrino signature, but that was not Karabut's conclusion, nor that of Peter 
> Hagelstein who has a theory for what is happening in Karabut's experiments.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:
> Bob--
>  
> Look at slides that follow #49—like about  57 and 60  or so.  The first is a 
> multi-colored spectrum of some different runs I believe in Nano meters up to 
> about 500.  And the second is a calculated spectrum for a black body for 5000 
> D Kelvin.  Note that the multi-colored graph shows each run of the colored 
> lines turning into a black body spectrum for about 5000 D K.
>  
> If some material stands 5000 D K for any length of time, I would like to know 
> what it is.  May Iridium oxide or some heavy trans-uranium oxide.   I do not 
> think thoria lasts very long at that temperature?  Maybe it is a metal 
> hydrino compound 
>  
> Bob Cook
>  
> From: Bob Higgins
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 8:03 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP demo video
>  
> Thank you, Axil, for this link.  It is slide 49, in particular to which I am 
> making reference.  In this slide you can see the soft x-ray set of lines 
> around 20-60nm, and another set of deep UV lines from 120-300nm.  What I was 
> saying is that the band from 120-300nm is explain-able from the 10V source, 
> capable of providing 10eV direct excitation, while the lines from 20-60nm are 
> harder to explain.  In fact, it is hard to measure this spectrum ... I wonder 
> what he used to measure it.
> 
> 
>  
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>  
> This may help
>  
> http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/TechnicalPresentation1.8.16.pdf
>  
> These are the slides used in the demo
>  
> Slide 53 and/or 57 are what you might need to see what you want.
> 

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: A STRANGE LENR STORY PLUS INFO FOR TODAY

[Ludwik Kowalski]

On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: 

" I want conventional physics to be used to explain the process  UNTIL A POINT 
IS REACHED WHEN NEW PHYSICS [new particles or new interactions] IS REQUIRED." 
This point has been reached; we do not know how to explain NAE. 

Yesterday I speculated that NAE can be due to a third, totally unknown force, 
which is neither "short-range-nuclear" nor "long-range-coulomb." 

The barrier would be lowered  if that force, acting on approaching protons, 
were directed toward the nucleus.

Now I am speculating that the needed force is acting on waves (mentioned by 
Brian J, this morning). What is wrong with the third force speculation?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
===
> 
> As you say Peter, "In my opinion, LENR based on metallized hydrogen is a 
> possible answer to these strange cosmological conundrums.'
> 
> I see we again agree. I made such an observation in my book on page 241. 
> Perhaps you might like to cite this.
> 
> 
> Ed Storms
> On Feb 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> 
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/02-feb-2016-lenr-strange-story-and-info.html
>> 
>> all my best wishes,
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>> 
>> -- 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: A STRANGE LENR STORY PLUS INFO FOR TODAY

[Ludwik Kowalski]

P.S. Yes, I know, fusion of two hydrogen nuclei is associated with two waves 
(in the C.M. frame of reference) moving toward each other. But I never heard 
about interactions associated with such waves.

Ludwik
===


On Feb 2, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: 
> 
> " I want conventional physics to be used to explain the process  UNTIL A 
> POINT IS REACHED WHEN NEW PHYSICS [new particles or new interactions] IS 
> REQUIRED." This point has been reached; we do not know how to explain NAE. 
> 
> Yesterday I speculated that NAE can be due to a third, totally unknown force, 
> which is neither "short-range-nuclear" nor "long-range-coulomb." 
> 
> The barrier would be lowered  if that force, acting on approaching protons, 
> were directed toward the nucleus.
> 
> Now I am speculating that the needed force is acting on waves (mentioned by 
> Brian J, this morning). What is wrong with the third force speculation?
> 
> Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
> ===
>> 
>> As you say Peter, "In my opinion, LENR based on metallized hydrogen is a 
>> possible answer to these strange cosmological conundrums.'
>> 
>> I see we again agree. I made such an observation in my book on page 241. 
>> Perhaps you might like to cite this.
>> 
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>> 
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/02-feb-2016-lenr-strange-story-and-info.html
>>> 
>>> all my best wishes,
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>>> Cluj, Romania
>>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>> 
>>> -- 

Re: [Vo]:SF Meetup report

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Many links appeared when I entered the: 

  forum meetup science 

into the Google search box.

Ludwik
===
On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> Many large cities have a group-oriented communication vehicle called 
> “meetup.com” which brings together a range of participants to discuss 
> specialized interests in arcane fields. For this kind of thing to work for 
> LENR, it probably requires an geographical area with a population base of 
> several million plus a high-tech orientation. And it looks like the 
> open-source movement, popularized by MFMP, has been an impetus for bringing a 
> lot of experimenters together.
> 
> Yesterday a formative group in the SF Bay area met and heard presentations by 
> Jeff Morriss on his  Parkhomov/Celani-type experiments and results; Robert 
> Ellefson on his Experimental design in progress, and Gene Thiers on his 
> experiences at SRI and measurement/ instrumentation for Cold Fusion 
> experiments during the early days of LENR of Pd-D.
> 
> To cut to the chase, since Bob is not yet collecting data – Jeff Morriss 
> (Intel) has put together a very capable system but has not yet seen thermal 
> gain. He is of the opinion that Parkhomov (assuming that he did see the 
> reported gain) got lucky with surface chemistry – which unfortunately he 
> (Parkhomov) has been unable to duplicate. Jeff intends to embark on an 
> Edisonian approach, now that he is completely confident in his calorimeter. 
> That would include altering surface chemistry of the nickel powders.
> 
> Jeff Morriss is in a perfect position to make a breakthrough, since like 
> Edison he has already tried many things which do not work and has complete 
> confidence in his system. His approach is strong on computerized control and 
> diagnostics, as would be expected from an Intel alum. A number of these 
> potential options – moving forward – were talked about at the presentation.
> 
> Gene Thiers strongly recommended adding a percentage of palladium and 
> deuterium to ANY EXPERIMENT, simply because it is known to work. IOW – even 
> if you are basically trying to find gain from Ni-H, using a Parkhomov 
> influenced design, Gene’s advice is to add a percentage of palladium and 
> deuterium to the fuel mix, since… (this is one interpretation) having any 
> positive gain at all could have a quantum probability enhancement to the bulk 
> of the experiment.
> 
> I think that is good advice. It would be very useful if someone would take 
> the initiative to supply preloaded Pd powder for such a purpose. I know of 6 
> high quality experiments which are either underway or will be soon, in this 
> area (including Brillouin). This gives hope that - despite the growing 
> pessimism about Rossi replications, one of these efforts will see gain which 
> is believable. If so, the success will probably be attributable more on the 
> early work with Ni-H (i.e. Thermacore, Piantelli, Mills etc) than on any 
> improvement to this line of work coming from Rossi.
> 
> Of course, if adding Pd-D to what is otherwise a Ni-H “glow tube” ends up 
> making the glow tube work, when otherwise it was not working - then we will 
> have another valuable datum to add into knowledge base. The concept of 
> “quantum probability enhancement” is something which has been proved to work 
> in LENR. ... Rusi T. used increased the neutron yield in his cavitation 
> experiments by "seeding" the liquid
> 
> with a tiny secondary source of radiation. The results were then found to be
> 
> orders of magnitude greater, when the contributing source was factored out. 
> He got criticism for that - but the idea behind it is arguably sound, so to 
> speak. See I.E. # 1, p. 46, "Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and Probability 
> Enhancement by Boson Stimulation," by Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III…
> 
> (Good grief … probably not that Charles Schultz, Charlie Brown…
> 

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: LENR INFO AND DEFENDING MY MEMES

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Yes indeed. 

2) See Comment #1, at 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2015/12/10/why-trust-a-theory-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-synopsis/?utm_source=feedburner_medium=email_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsPhysicalScience+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Physical+Science%29

from Peter's blog.

Ludwik
=

On Dec 11, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Peter, let me ask some common sense questions, which seem to be lacking in 
> LENR these days. First, why are the isotope shifts of nickel reported by 
> Rossi 's collaborators being discussed as if they are real? We have no reason 
> to believe this claimed behavior.  This is not scientific information 
> subjected to replication and careful analysis? Why not discussion information 
> that has good support and use this to propose an explanation.  
> 
> Why does Axil claim Holmlid sees mesons when in fact he only interprets a 
> stage behavior by using the meson idea? Good science results when people 
> correctly report what is observed and the conclusions.  Sloppy reading of 
> what is reported keeps distracting the discussion from what is real. Can we 
> please discuss what has been observed rather than what is imagined?
> 
> Ed Storms 
> 
> 
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> 
>> 
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-11-2015-lenr-info-defending-my-own.html
>> 
>> easy to understand my comments; unfortunately aso easy to misunderstand 
>> them- blogging is risky a bit...
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "CMNS" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "CMNS" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Thank you for the link:

   
http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel

to the 2014 "e-cat report," Isotopic changes in the fuel," by G. Levi (Bologna 
University) and E. Fusch 
(Upsala University)--"Observation  of  Abundant  Heat  Production  from  a  
Reactor  Device  and of  isotopic Changes in the Fuel."  

2) Does anyone know why it was published in the ecatword, rather than in a 
refereed journal, like our CMNS?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)



On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:34 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

> Jed,
> I disagree with your repeated comments about the "experts" understanding 
> global warming.
> I wrote "There is nothing unusual about the weather." If you follow the link 
> you will see that is true.
>  
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years-2/
> Not to mention that the satellite temperature measurements show no increase 
> for the last ~19 years which falsifies the IPCC model projections.
> 
> Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the 
> Dept of Energy.  I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and 
> can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible 
> because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low 
> temperature.   I have a friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but 
> he is told to shut up as LENR is pseudo science.  Experts are not immune from 
> group-think.
> 
> In frustration I wrote the following letter on 7/7/2015.  I have not received 
> a reply.
> 
> To Dr. Ernest Moniz - Secretary of Energy
> 
> Dear Dr. Moniz,
> 
> I read that you have been closely associated with DOE and MIT for many years. 
>  Why have both those organizations ignored LENR (aka cold fusion)?  In fact 
> both were involved in the infanticide of that field in 1989 – 1990.  May I 
> suggest you read the few pages by Beaudette linked here to see why that was a 
> mistake?http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
> 
> See also the special section on LENR in Current Science, starting with 
> McKubre’s paper. 
> http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions=10094
> 
> The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he 
> demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was 
> capable of generating kW of heat.  Developed with his own funds, some details 
> of the design were not released.  The refusal of the Patent Office to 
> consider patents on cold fusion – thanks to DOE staff – didn’t help.
> 
> In 2013-2014 ELFORSK (Swedish equivalent of EPRI) tested the later high 
> temperature E-Cat twice at Lugano.  The second time for a month, when it 
> produced 1.5 MW of excess heat.  Late last year and again this year Dr. 
> Parkhomov replicated the Lugano test in Russia.  Reported at the ICCF-19 
> Conference.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel
> 
> Rossi sold the rights for the E-Cat to Industrial Heat LLC over a year ago.  
> They have built a 1 MW thermal LENR plant that has been operating for 137 
> days (now 9 months)as part of a one year trial.  Norway's largest newspaper 
> Aftenposten has reported they have expert third party confirmation that it is 
> operating well  Other independent reports are that it is running well with a 
> COP of 20 –   80(!)   Photos of the plant  
> http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/
> 
> LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Some of your people like NASA Chief 
> Scientist Dennis Bushnell endorse it but DOE doesn’t.  From direct experience 
> of DOE (eg. cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford – we would have finished by 
> now) I don’t expect DOE to help, but you should re-evaluate money you are 
> spending on renewable energy, like ITER and solar, and fire the group-think 
> physicists who have provided such poor advice, missing something as important 
> as LENR.
> You have been with tasked with implementing critical Department of Energy 
> missions in support of President Obama's goals of growing the economy, 
> enhancing security and protecting the environment. But by not even 
> considering cheap, safe, pollution free LENR I think you have failed in your 
> duty. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adrian Ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Why are Rossi's intentions important, in the context of validating his CMNS 
claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows reputable 
scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain nearly identical (+/- 30%) 
results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens 
of patents.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

==
On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:43 PM, David Roberson wrote:

> Axil,
> 
> Do you see any reference in this group of postings to a single mouse driving 
> 15 cats?  I looked at it briefly and can not find it.  There is plenty of 
> speculation on the part of Hank and others but I do not see where Rossi 
> confirms a configuration like we are discussing.
> 
> Much of this information is from 2 years ago and Rossi just recently told me 
> to use the patent as a reference.  What should we use?  The patent seems to 
> be the best indication of his actual intentions.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 
> The information you are sharing is fascinating. While we wait for the full 
> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
> 
> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
> 
> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
> 
> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat 
> during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, 
> but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For 
> example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt 
> plant in self sustain mode.
> 
> 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the 
> end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?
> 
> Andrea Rossi
> December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
> Hank Mills:
> 1- no
> 2- confidential
> 3- no
> 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers 
> when the Mouse is turned on
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 
> What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to 
> self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade over 
> time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not apply 
> power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one test the 
> data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions gradually faded 
> over time.
> 
> Andrea Rossi
> December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM
> Hank Mills:
> If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the 
> controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive 
> below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a 
> controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP 
> raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made by 
> two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy 
> catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a 
> COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the 
> cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have 
> seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Joseph Fine
> May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM
> Dear Andrea Rossi,
> 
> The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the 
> Mouse) consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW 
> of heat during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) = 286, 
> assume the actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher than 
> the presumed COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path.
> 
> If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C, is 
> between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between 100-125, 
> (let alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to drive from 
> .3*100 to .4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input to a 
> first-stage Mouse can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+ kW-Elec, 
> may be able to drive 30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices.
> 
> Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of validating 
his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows 
reputable scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) 
results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens 
of his patents.

Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 

===

On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> That is what the Rossi says
> 
> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
> egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release 
> statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available 
> experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of 
> ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic 
> monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as 
> to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
> patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured. 
>  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are 
> speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is 
> the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 
> others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in 
> his writings.
> 
> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
> one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are 
> based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information 
> accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you 
> are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written 
> by Rossi?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Joseph
> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
> Dr Andrea Rossi,
> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
> work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You 
> are unique.
> J.
> Andrea Rossi
> November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
> Joseph,
> Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
> work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so 
> much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose 
> book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these 
> last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility 
> will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions 
> on the battlefield.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything 
> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply 
> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is 
> to have value.
> 
> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
> module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out within 
> the written patent.
> 
> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
> this in the patent that I have seen.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
> 
> Hank Mills
> December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full 
> reports, it gives us something to think upon.
> 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles 
> continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?
> 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended 
> periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?
> 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat 
> duri

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

1) Thank you for the  links to your articles, Axil. I will read them tomorrow. 

2) Are you saying that Lugano scientists followed Rossi's published protocol, 
and that their quantitative results were approximately the same as his? My 
recollection is that this did not happen. Otherwise, ;-).

3) What is Rossi waiting for? In his place I would have published the protocol 
(without trying to offer a theory) a long time ago, waited for at least two 
independent quantitative confirmation of results, and expected a prestigious 
recognition  ;-).

4) Unable to publish, I would start selling reactors, counting on great 
commercial success.  ;-).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

=== 

On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> Rossi has revealed his Hot Cat technology in the Lugano test. Using this 
> report, multiple experimenters SAY that they have replicated the Hot Cat. The 
> patent submitted by the Industrial Heat is  filed with quotes pulled directly 
> from the Lugano report. 
> 
> I have drawn important insights from the Ni62 100 micro ash particle analyzed 
> in the Lugano report about how the LENR reaction works.
> 
> See
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/07/05/lugano-fuel-analysis-axil-axil/
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/18/rossi-ash-sample-size-from-lugano-test-not-representative-of-whole-charge/
> 
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/19/my-opinion-regarding-rossicook-reaction-theory-axil-axil/
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Ludwik Kowalski 
> <kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> 
>> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of 
>> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol 
>> which allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups, 
>> and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous 
>> contribution, much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to 
>> gain from this. What is he waiting for?
>> 
>> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 
>> 
>> ===
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>> 
>>> That is what the Rossi says
>>> 
>>> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
>>> engineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre 
>>> release statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all 
>>> available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic 
>>> confinement of ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, 
>>> the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all 
>>> informative as to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the 
>>> other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is 
>>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we 
>>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that 
>>> that is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is 
>>> driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made 
>>> that clear in his writings.
>>> 
>>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
>>> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have 
>>> missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models 
>>> are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that 
>>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to 
>>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is 
>>> actually written by Rossi?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>>> 
>>> Joseph
>>> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>>> Dr Andrea Rossi,
>>> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
>>> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
>>> work in your pla

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Ludwik Kowalski]

On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of 
> validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which 
> allows reputable scientists to replicate at least one of his setups, and to 
> obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous contribution, 
> much more valuable than tens of his patents. He has a lot to gain from this. 
> What is he waiting for?
> 
> Ludwik  Kowalski (see Wikipedia) 
> 
> ===
> 
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> 
>> That is what the Rossi says
>> 
>> I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to 
>> egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release 
>> statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available 
>> experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of 
>> ENPs comes from various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic 
>> monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as 
>> to how the cause of LENR behaves.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>> That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
>> patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is 
>> structured.  Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we 
>> are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that 
>> is the situation.  When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 
>> others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in 
>> his writings.
>> 
>> I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
>> mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
>> one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are 
>> based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that 
>> information accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to 
>> state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is 
>> actually written by Rossi?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>> 
>> Joseph
>> November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM
>> Dr Andrea Rossi,
>> Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the 
>> making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and 
>> work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You 
>> are unique.
>> J.
>> Andrea Rossi
>> November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
>> Joseph,
>> Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the 
>> work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so 
>> much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose 
>> book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these 
>> last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility 
>> will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions 
>> on the battlefield.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>> 
>> Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending.
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>> That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted.  Do you see anything 
>> within the patent that fits into this form?  Rossi is required to supply 
>> information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent 
>> is to have value.
>> 
>> It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver 
>> module that is different for the other modules.  Please point that out 
>> within the written patent.
>> 
>> Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank!  There is nothing like 
>> this in the patent that I have seen.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement
>> 
>> Hank Mills
>> December 29th, 2013 at

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Ludwik Kowalski]

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: JCF-16 subjective preview, notes info for Nov 26, 2015

[Ludwik Kowalski]

P.S. Wikipedia's definition (in blue below) is consistent with what I remember.


A catalyst is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction, but is not 
consumed by the reaction; hence a catalyst can be recovered chemically 
unchanged at the end of the reaction it has been used to speed up, or catalyze.



On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> I also responded to Peter G, essentially at the same time. Bot my reply 
> bounced back. I wrote:
> 
> 1) Peter wrote (see his egoout below ): ... "I have a cult for catalysis, met 
> it professionally in many forms and have developed a kind of philosophy of it 
> ... .
> 
> I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have 
> developed a kind of philosophy of it.
> 
>  - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. "
> 
> 2) I am not a chemist. But I would say that a catalytic surface is a surface 
> covered with one or more catalysts  (chemical compounds). Such compounds can 
> participate in reactions but are not consumed by these reactions). Some 
> chemical reactions would be very rare, if catalysts were not available.
> 
> 3) Does my definition conflict with Peter's nano-cracks definition? Probably 
> not; Peter probably thinks that some catalysts are present in nano-cracks. 
> Which compounds does he have in mind, in our CMNS context?
> 
> Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
> 
>> a) Continuing discussion with Ed Storms
>> 
>>  Yesterday Ed has promptly answered to my catalysis in LENR questions, but 
>> has forgot to answer to this question "caused "by the unique PdD et classic 
>> paper of JCF-16 so I repeat it:
>> 
>> - what do you think about paper of Numata-  No.15 at JCF- see the  list? I 
>> have spoken more times about nano-vortices as NAE to you, in this is 
>> something like that
>> 
>> Ed: I will be pleased to comment once the paper becomes available.  If you 
>> you have a copy, please send it.
>> 
>> Ed's answer, my comments 
>> 
>> 
>> To answer your questions, we need to know what the words mean. The word 
>> catalyst describes a general concept, there being hundreds of different 
>> kinds of catalyst. One kind does not take the place of another. Simply 
>> saying a catalytic surface is required is too trivial.  What is worse, the 
>> concept of catalyst was only applied to a chemical reaction, never to a 
>> nuclear reaction, until LENR was discovered.  We need to know what the word 
>> means when it describes a nuclear process. A catalyst can reasonably be 
>> understood to lower a barrier by a few eV but what allows a barrier of 
>> several MeV to be lowered?
>> 
>> ANSWER 
>> Please, please read my essay here:
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/12/the-most-fundamental-question-about-lenr.html
>>  
>> I have a cult for catalysis, met it professionally in many forms and have 
>> developed a kind of philosophy of it.
>> 
>> Ed: I read your comment but I do not understand how it applies to our 
>> problem. A catalyst is a concept applied when the rate of a chemical 
>> reaction can be increased by operation of another chemical condition. To be 
>> useful, the chemical condition needs to be identified. This requires 
>> identification of the chemical state causing the rate of LENR to increase. 
>> In addition, we are faced with the need to increase a reaction rate having a 
>> barrier of MeV.  You have not answered my question. How can this be done?
>> 
>>  - I claim a "catalytic" surface consists of nano-cracks. These cracks are 
>> created by stress relief.  Many ways exist to create the stress and the 
>> resulting crack formation depends on the property of the surface.  Stress 
>> generation and crack formation are influence by many variables. We will not 
>> understand these variables until they are study for the purpose of causing 
>> LENR.  So, simply saying a catalyst is necessary without showing the form of 
>> the catalyst is useless.  Also, complaining about lack of knowledge about 
>> the process without showing what needs to be studied is also useless.  I'm 
>> attempting to show exactly what needs to be studied and what will be found 
>> when that study is undertaken. I see no one else doing this. Instead, we are 
>> provided with guesses and speculation based on what Rossi might wish to 
>> reveal. 
>> 
>> ANSWER
>> As far I know/understand, the nanocracks are not a specific, quantifiable  
>> feature of the metal (Pd, Ni) surface- with concrete