Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

Muon radiation is not immediately deadly. We all have muons passing through
our bodies produced by cosmic rays. These muons contribute to 12% more or
less of the total background radiation loading that exist in the
background.

[image: Inline image 1]

Muons hardly react with the elements in our bodies. But muon reaction rates
increase greatly in heavy elements like lead.

When the production of muons increases by a billion times, the background
radiation loading that we are exposed to will increase accordingly.

A 100 watt LENR reactor does not increase this background reaction loading
very much because most of those muons pass right through the body. But if
10 gigawatts of LENR is produced within a limited urban area like Atlanta,
The background radiation rate that exists in the greater Atlanta city
limits will increase in proportion to the power generation rate in that
city.

Living in that LENR powered Atlanta is like living in outer space where
exposure to muon radiation is most intense.

Working near a single 100 watt LENR reactor will produce a similar
background radiation loading that one would be exposed to in a cross
country airline fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

"The Earth and all living things on it are constantly bombarded by
radiation from outer space. This radiation primarily consists of positively
charged ions from protons to iron and larger nuclei derived sources outside
our solar system. This radiation interacts with atoms in the atmosphere to
create an air shower of secondary radiation, including X-rays, muons,
protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons. The immediate
dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and electrons,
and this dose varies in different parts of the world based largely on the
geomagnetic field and altitude. For example, the city of Denver in the
United States (at 1650 meters elevation) receives a cosmic ray dose roughly
twice that of a location at sea level. This radiation is much more intense
in the upper troposphere, around 10 km altitude, and is thus of particular
concern for airline crews and frequent passengers, who spend many hours per
year in this environment. During their flights airline crews typically get
an extra dose on the order of 2.2 mSv (220 mrem) per year."



On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>
>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
 tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
 exposure.

>>>
>>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>>
>>
>
>
> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
>> Rossi has😉.
>>
>
> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
> I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
> If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
> radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
> plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>
> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/
> 01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>
> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Peter Gluck]

yes

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0194.09_Exhibit_9.pdf

and some e-mails by him etc.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

>
> Was Penon deposed?  He is the central figure in the trial. Has he answered
> questions under oath?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> The ERV is moot without his sworn testimony under fear of jepoardy.
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 10:15 AM
> *To:* VORTEX
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
>
> Jed,
> you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian
> negative
> revelation of nothingness.
> I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you
> agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful
> test?
>
> The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.
>
> peter
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
>>>>> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
>>>>> exposure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable
>>> amounts...like Rossi has😉.
>>>
>>
>> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake.
>> Suppose I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to
>> 100 W. If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal
>> doses of radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was
>> announced plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>>
>> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
>> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
>> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>>
>> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
>> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
>> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>>
>> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
>> 0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>>
>> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Brian Ahern]

Was Penon deposed?  He is the central figure in the trial. Has he answered 
questions under oath?

If not, why not?

The ERV is moot without his sworn testimony under fear of jepoardy.


From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 10:15 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Jed,
you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative
revelation of nothingness.
I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you agree 
with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful test?

The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce tons of 
all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.

If that were true, I would be dead.



I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like 
Rossi has😉.

Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose I 
have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W. If you 
are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of radiation. As 
I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced plasma fusion 
scientists pointed this out.

If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of cold 
fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at the 
levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year test. The 
test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the Penon report 
(Exhibit 197-03)

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.

- Jed




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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,
you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative
revelation of nothingness.
I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you
agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful
test?

The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>
>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
 tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
 exposure.

>>>
>>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>>
>>
>
>
> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
>> Rossi has😉.
>>
>
> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
> I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
> If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
> radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
> plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>
> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/
> 01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>
> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBB8SgHazs

2017-04-03 0:05 GMT-03:00 Che :

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the
> solid foundation of realism.
>
>
>
> Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing
> commercialism, any day.
> Look where that's got us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:



> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
>>> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>>>
>>
>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>
>


I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
> Rossi has😉.
>

Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.

If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year test.
The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the Penon
report (Exhibit 197-03)

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

You are right.  It was Jones Beene.  My apologies.
AA

On 4/3/2017 5:41 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge.




*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:



Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


*From:* Che 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
<http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/>
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken
seriously here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>


Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume
the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus
lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the
antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
equation, so that the law is respected. You could say
that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact,
but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model
would brutally crack down: realistically, between a
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Brian Ahern]

Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


From: Che <mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.


Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.








AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on 
vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up on 
atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more expert 
than me, will comment.


  1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 
PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>

Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear physics 
equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect of the leptons 
conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives one proton, 
one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron 
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have one lepton and 
this would be against the leptons number conservation law: therefore you have 
to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton ( the 
electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the 
right of the equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that this 
sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit without this 
trick the Standard Model would brutally crack down: realistically, between a 
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

*Monasticism or monkhood is the purest form of communism and forms the
basis of a spiritual way of life in which one renounces worldly pursuits
and the evils of society to devote oneself fully to spiritual work.*

*Monastic life plays an important role in many Christian churches,
especially in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Similar forms of
religious life also exist in other faiths, most notably in Buddhism, but
also in Hinduism and Jainism, although the expressions differ considerably.*

*People pursuing a monastic life may be individuals who decided to dedicate
their lives to serving all other living beings, or to be an ascetic who
voluntarily chooses to leave mainstream money-grubbing commercialism of
today's society and live his life in prayer and contemplation. The concept
is ancient and can be seen in many religions and in philosophy. Many monks
and nuns live in monasteries to stay away from the secular world. If your
commitment to your communal beliefs are strong enough and your dislike of
the travails of life are intense enough, you might want to give monkhood a
try.*

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the
> solid foundation of realism.
>
>
>
> Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing
> commercialism, any day.
> Look where that's got us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the
solid foundation of realism.



Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing
commercialism, any day.
Look where that's got us.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
Rossi has😉.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into subatomic particles
>> thereby producing radiation loading that is proportional to the heat
>> produced.
>>
>
> No, it is not proportional. Radiation is seldom detected, and when it is,
> it is not proportional; the ratio of heat to radiation varies a great deal.
>
>
> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
>> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>>
>
> If that were true, I would be dead.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into subatomic particles
> thereby producing radiation loading that is proportional to the heat
> produced.
>

No, it is not proportional. Radiation is seldom detected, and when it is,
it is not proportional; the ratio of heat to radiation varies a great deal.


If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce tons
> of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>

If that were true, I would be dead.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:



Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


*From:* Che 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
<http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/>
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously
here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>


Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume the
emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton
( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that
the law is respected. You could say that this sounds a
little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit
without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

As an *ideologue*, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the
solid foundation of realism. Be aware that there is no such thing as a free
lunch.  Most beleive that LENR is rooted in miracles, but only spirituality
is rooted in miracles and miracles are just not part of this world.

A realist is always sensitive to the downsides of things. Someone who is
optimistic believes the best things will happen in all situations. They
expect the best outcome and look for the best in people. On the darkest day
they will find the sunshine. They are happy and always have a reason to be
happy. There is nothing wrong with the way that you view this life.

Realistic people are an prudent mixture of both of these visions of reality
but for some reason are always perceived as being negative even though more
than likely they are being logical, wise, and realistic and I fall into
this category unfortunately leaving everyone to think I'm a huge bitch
because they skip over the fact that there is a middle ground between
optimism and pessimism, that middle way is reality.

The world will turn out to be how it will be. It is wise to live in this
real world, rather than an illusion.

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Che  wrote:

>
> Is this what we are all supposed to understand, now -- or is this just
> your considered speculative opinion?
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> @Che
>>
>> Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held
>> but unfortunately incorrect. LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter
>> into subatomic particles thereby producing radiation loading that is
>> proportional to the heat produced. If LENR produces tons of energy in the
>> aggregate, it will also produce tons of all pervasive and highly
>> penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>>
>> Because of this radiation risk, LENR will be regulated just like neutron
>> based nuclear energy is today. Meson based nuclear energy will be similar
>> to neutron based nuclear energy except without the radioactive nuclear
>> waste problem.
>>
>> Large LENR reactors will be sited underground feeding gigawatts of
>> electric power to the grid. There will be no LENR powered cars or hot water
>> heaters or stand alone how based electric power generators.
>>
>> Those huge LENR based underground electric power stations won't be sited
>> and running until most of the Vort membership is long gone.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Che  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
 Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.

>>>
>>>
>>> Where's the BEEF??
>>> Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
>>> (Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
>>>
>>> Damned 'private-property' interests.
>>> Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
>>> Pfft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 AA



 On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


 Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here
 on vortex-L?

 At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great
 deal.






 On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
 wrote:

> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning
> up on atomic physics.
>
> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
> expert than me, will comment.
>
>
>1. Andrea Rossi
>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>
> 
>
>Eugene Atthove:
>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the 
> respect of
>the leptons conservation law.
>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday,
>gives one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at 
> the
>left of the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the 
> right
>you have one lepton and this would be against the leptons number
>conservation law: therefore you have to assume the emission of an
>antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus
>lepton ( the antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
>equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that this sounds 
> a
>little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit without this 
> trick
>the Standard Model would brutally crack down: realistically, between a
>crack and a trick is better the trick.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

>
> Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!
>


That's about the most sense I've read here today.





>
> --
> *From:* Che 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
>> Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
>>
>
>
> Where's the BEEF??
> Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
> (Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
>
> Damned 'private-property' interests.
> Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
> Pfft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on
>> vortex-L?
>>
>> At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning
>>> up on atomic physics.
>>>
>>> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
>>> expert than me, will comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>>>
>>> <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>
>>>
>>>Eugene Atthove:
>>>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>>>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect 
>>> of
>>>the leptons conservation law.
>>>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
>>>one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left 
>>> of
>>>the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have
>>>one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation law:
>>>therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
>>>one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
>>>zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
>>>respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
>>>artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
>>>brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better
>>>the trick.
>>>Warm Regards,
>>>A.R.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Brian Ahern]

Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


From: Che 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.


Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.








AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on 
vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up on 
atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more expert 
than me, will comment.


  1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 
PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=223#comment-1273347>

Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear physics 
equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect of the leptons 
conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives one proton, 
one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron 
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have one lepton and 
this would be against the leptons number conservation law: therefore you have 
to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton ( the 
electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the 
right of the equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that this 
sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit without this 
trick the Standard Model would brutally crack down: realistically, between a 
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

In case you don't  know spanish:

THREE SAD TROTSKIERS HAMERED STONES IN A GULAG

Three Sad Trotskyists
They ended up in a gulag for betraying each other.
For the mistake made in following Leon Trotsky
Coming to the following conclusion:

TROTSTKY !!
Damn Menshevik opposed to Lenin and Marxism Leninism
He deceived us and filled the red army of tsarist officers
He should be here !!

Trotskyists dirty traitors
They divide and divide many times between them because they are traitors
Same as its leader Leon Trotsky.
Ramon Mercader became a worker icon an ice ax

Trotskyism
Opportunistic and petty-bourgeois ideological stream
With the entrismo was wanted to destroy the Soviet union
They are now vulgar reformists rejected by the left

Trotskyists dirty traitors
They divide and divide many times between them because they are traitors
Same as its leader Leon Trotsky.
Ramon Mercader became a worker icon an ice ax

Three Trotskyist Tristres
Tractioning between them as is normal ended up stinging in a large gulag
Wishing Leon Trotsky death
Ramon Merchant became an icon worker an ice ax

2017-04-02 19:39 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> Che, this is a present for you: https://www.youtube.com/
> watch?v=uD8WwCd7E14
>



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

Che, this is a present for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD8WwCd7E14

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

Is this what we are all supposed to understand, now -- or is this just your
considered speculative opinion?


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> @Che
>
> Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held
> but unfortunately incorrect. LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter
> into subatomic particles thereby producing radiation loading that is
> proportional to the heat produced. If LENR produces tons of energy in the
> aggregate, it will also produce tons of all pervasive and highly
> penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>
> Because of this radiation risk, LENR will be regulated just like neutron
> based nuclear energy is today. Meson based nuclear energy will be similar
> to neutron based nuclear energy except without the radioactive nuclear
> waste problem.
>
> Large LENR reactors will be sited underground feeding gigawatts of
> electric power to the grid. There will be no LENR powered cars or hot water
> heaters or stand alone how based electric power generators.
>
> Those huge LENR based underground electric power stations won't be sited
> and running until most of the Vort membership is long gone.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
>>> Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Where's the BEEF??
>> Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
>> (Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
>>
>> Damned 'private-property' interests.
>> Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
>> Pfft.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here
>>> on vortex-L?
>>>
>>> At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning
 up on atomic physics.

 What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
 expert than me, will comment.


1. Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

 

Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the 
 respect of
the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left 
 of
the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you 
 have
one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation 
 law:
therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you 
 have
one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) 
 =
zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is 
 better
the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:39 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Che,
> Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings?  Well.
> do tell us.
>


Stop being so predictably defensive and just answer the questions which
MOST people will no doubt be asking -- especially after the despicable
spectacle of Rossi The Showman's 5-Ring e-Circus.


Or shut up yourself.




>
> AA
>
>
> On 4/2/2017 4:38 PM, Che wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
>> Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
>>
>
>
> Where's the BEEF??
> Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
> (Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
>
> Damned 'private-property' interests.
> Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
> Pfft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on
>> vortex-L?
>>
>> At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning
>>> up on atomic physics.
>>>
>>> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
>>> expert than me, will comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Eugene Atthove:
>>>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>>>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect 
>>> of
>>>the leptons conservation law.
>>>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
>>>one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left 
>>> of
>>>the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have
>>>one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation law:
>>>therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
>>>one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
>>>zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
>>>respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
>>>artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
>>>brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better
>>>the trick.
>>>Warm Regards,
>>>A.R.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Che,
Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings? 
Well. do tell us.


AA

On 4/2/2017 4:38 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously
here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM




Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume the
emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton
( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that
the law is respected. You could say that this sounds a
little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit
without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

@Che

Your expectations about how LENR will evolve is almost universally held but
unfortunately incorrect. LENR produces energy by ripping apart matter into
subatomic particles thereby producing radiation loading that is
proportional to the heat produced. If LENR produces tons of energy in the
aggregate, it will also produce tons of all pervasive and highly
penetrating meson based radiation exposure.

Because of this radiation risk, LENR will be regulated just like neutron
based nuclear energy is today. Meson based nuclear energy will be similar
to neutron based nuclear energy except without the radioactive nuclear
waste problem.

Large LENR reactors will be sited underground feeding gigawatts of electric
power to the grid. There will be no LENR powered cars or hot water heaters
or stand alone how based electric power generators.

Those huge LENR based underground electric power stations won't be sited
and running until most of the Vort membership is long gone.



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
>> Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
>>
>
>
> Where's the BEEF??
> Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
> (Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)
>
> Damned 'private-property' interests.
> Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
> Pfft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on
>> vortex-L?
>>
>> At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning
>>> up on atomic physics.
>>>
>>> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
>>> expert than me, will comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Eugene Atthove:
>>>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>>>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect 
>>> of
>>>the leptons conservation law.
>>>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
>>>one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left 
>>> of
>>>the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have
>>>one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation law:
>>>therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
>>>one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
>>>zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
>>>respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
>>>artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
>>>brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better
>>>the trick.
>>>Warm Regards,
>>>A.R.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
> Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
>


Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.









> AA
>
>
>
> On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:
>
>
> Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on
> vortex-L?
>
> At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up
>> on atomic physics.
>>
>> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
>> expert than me, will comment.
>>
>>
>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>>
>> 
>>
>>Eugene Atthove:
>>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect 
>> of
>>the leptons conservation law.
>>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
>>one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left of
>>the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have
>>one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation law:
>>therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
>>one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
>>zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
>>respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
>>artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
>>brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better
>>the trick.
>>Warm Regards,
>>A.R.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
AA


On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here 
on vortex-L?


At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time
boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here,
more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM




Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to
obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday,
gives one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why?
Because at the left of the neutron decay equation you do not
have leptons, at the right you have one lepton and this would
be against the leptons number conservation law: therefore you
have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the
antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that
this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is,
albeit without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Che]

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on
vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up
> on atomic physics.
>
> What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more
> expert than me, will comment.
>
>
>1. Andrea Rossi
>March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
>
> 
>
>Eugene Atthove:
>As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
>physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect of
>the leptons conservation law.
>For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
>one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left of
>the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have
>one lepton and this would be against the leptons number conservation law:
>therefore you have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
>one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
>zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that the law is
>respected. You could say that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an
>artifact, but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model would
>brutally crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better
>the trick.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

as I point out in my talk : the Copernican revolution led to an existential 
crisis and the full implications of the unified field theory published 1758 
most people found themselves unable to cope with:
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in physics 
R Anderton ANPA 2016
 
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in phys...
 Copernician Revolution led to Existential crisis, the fall-out of which we 
still suffer. Boscovich's theory ...  |   |

  |

  |

 
latest books on unified field theory presented at UCL last month:
Book Launch for books on Unified Field Theory Nicholas Maxwell March 2017

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Book Launch for books on Unified Field Theory Nicholas Maxwell March 2017
 Book Launch for the books: In Praise of Natural Philosophy: A revolution for 
Thought and Life , and Understandin...  |   |

  |

  |

 


 

On Sunday, 2 April 2017, 16:12, "bobcook39...@gmail.com" 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv0759508617 #yiv0759508617 -- _filtered #yiv0759508617 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0759508617 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0759508617 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 
2 3 3;}#yiv0759508617 #yiv0759508617 p.yiv0759508617MsoNormal, #yiv0759508617 
li.yiv0759508617MsoNormal, #yiv0759508617 div.yiv0759508617MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0759508617 a:link, 
#yiv0759508617 span.yiv0759508617MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0759508617 a:visited, #yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617m533984284366783107st {}#yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617hoenzb {}#yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617m533984284366783107gmail-m5486777921319670336m2431543213860854541hoenzb
 {}#yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617m533984284366783107gmail-m5486777921319670336m2431543213860854541m5833325939559596372m6302757992862348797hoenzb
 {}#yiv0759508617 
span.yiv0759508617m533984284366783107gmail-m5486777921319670336m2431543213860854541m5833325939559596372hoenzb
 {}#yiv0759508617 .yiv0759508617MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0759508617 
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0759508617 div.yiv0759508617WordSection1 
{}#yiv0759508617 Axil—  I agree with your notion of current science.  IMHO 
what’s happening (slowly) to physics and chemistry and the other sciences is a 
gradual change in the scientific community to accepting facts instead of hiding 
their head in dogma and more myths because of the lack good solid facts,  often 
hid by institutional (political) control of the scientific community.   This is 
what has by happened starting in the 1930’s to institutions of “higher 
learning” under the thumb of government control via financing but seems to be 
back on the right track with the event of the internet and better communication 
among individuals.     The same thing happened to the community of “scholars” 
in the reformation  of Christian  dogma.   Darwin and new geologists following 
various Italians like Galileo and his predecessors forced facts on the large 
community of “scholars”—the priests—and the lay people who tended to have a 
better sense of reason.   The complex dogma—non-reason—lost favor by the common 
people because of the event of mass education in the liberal arts starting with 
the invention of the printing press.    The internet is proving to provide a 
similar improvement in communication among the masses with access to unbiased 
ideas in many instances.   Of course there is the danger of institutional 
control of free exchange of ideas and data—facts—in order to maintain the 
status quo with a financial advantage for some.   An education policy of 
conservative arts does not foster change, which LENR will cause IMHO.  Bob Cook 
       From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 6:21 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.  LENR will redefine a goodly amount 
of our current science. Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, 
LENR is very esoteric.   To support my assertion, this following reference 
shows that the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a 
monopole magnetic field.  Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave 
like magnetic monopoles  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf   
 On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and don't have 
the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to understand if 
they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated a magnetic 
monopole but some talk about them as real.  The proof is less convincing to me 
than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both cases I'd rather wait and see.

AA   On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axi

RE: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[bobcook39923]

Axil—

I agree with your notion of current science.  IMHO what’s happening (slowly) to 
physics and chemistry and the other sciences is a gradual change in the 
scientific community to accepting facts instead of hiding their head in dogma 
and more myths because of the lack good solid facts,  often hid by 
institutional (political) control of the scientific community.   This is what 
has by happened starting in the 1930’s to institutions of “higher learning” 
under the thumb of government control via financing but seems to be back on the 
right track with the event of the internet and better communication among 
individuals.   

The same thing happened to the community of “scholars” in the reformation  of 
Christian  dogma.   Darwin and new geologists following various Italians like 
Galileo and his predecessors forced facts on the large community of 
“scholars”—the priests—and the lay people who tended to have a better sense of 
reason.   The complex dogma—non-reason—lost favor by the common people because 
of the event of mass education in the liberal arts starting with the invention 
of the printing press.  

The internet is proving to provide a similar improvement in communication among 
the masses with access to unbiased ideas in many instances.   Of course there 
is the danger of institutional control of free exchange of ideas and 
data—facts—in order to maintain the status quo with a financial advantage for 
some.   An education policy of conservative arts does not foster change, which 
LENR will cause IMHO.

Bob Cook




From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 6:21 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately 
because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very esoteric. 

To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the Surface 
Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole magnetic field.

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and don't have 
the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to understand if 
they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated a magnetic 
monopole but some talk about them as real.  The proof is less convincing to me 
than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both cases I'd rather wait and see.

AA 

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole 
quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support  monopole 
flux lines. 

The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field (almost a 
monopole formated magnetic field).

This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction. 

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller particles.  They 
seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than pinned down by 
experiment.  Let me know when someone proves the existence of a magnetic 
monopole.

AA 

On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force 
produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how those 
forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and 
mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these particles are 
just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition 
where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the 
results of this change in behavior.  

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot change 
unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy. If enough 
energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually become unified. 
This is the main tenet in supersymmetry. 

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this way. As 
Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism is applied 
to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the quadrupole magnetic 
force as the factor that changes the action of the fundamental forces. This 
pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the 
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic force.   

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory correct 
in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem to 
forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with I

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
I suppose that the paper you referenced could be right but their 
explanation is so lousy I don't know.  I know what a soliton is but a 
half soliton sounds like clapping with one hand.  It is reminiscent of 
string theory.
You are right is saying "Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in 
science, LENR is very esoteric."  It is unfortunate.  At least Mills 
tries to explain things in a more visual way.  Seems to me that if one 
really understands something it can be described in a much more lucid 
fashion.

AA

On 4/1/2017 9:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. 
Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very 
esoteric.


To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the 
Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole 
magnetic field.


Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and
don't have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well
enough to understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one
has ever demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them
as real.  The proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's
E-Cat works. In both cases I'd rather wait and see.

AA

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field
formatted to support  monopole flux lines.

The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic
field (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).

This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html



On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these
smaller particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the
individual's belief than pinned down by experiment.  Let me
know when someone /proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.

AA


On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and
the weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic
particles are the effects of how those forces function. The
strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and
mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But
these particles are just the effects of what the strong
force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the
results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of
nature cannot change unless they are affected by the
application of extremes in energy. If enough energy is
present, then the fundamental forces will gradually become
unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not
behave in this way. As Rossi states, these forces change
when a special type of magnetism is applied to the
fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But
informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole
magnetic force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having
LENR theory correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something
evident. And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi
and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi
learnt that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy
evidence does nothing for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory
knowledge of particle physics. He probably learned
about this when writing his last paper.





-- 
Dan

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. Unfortunately
because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very esoteric.

To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the Surface
Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole magnetic field.

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and don't
> have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to
> understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever
> demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real.  The
> proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both
> cases I'd rather wait and see.
>
> AA
>
> On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole
> quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support
>  monopole flux lines.
>
> The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field
> (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).
>
> This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.
>
> That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.
>
> To refresh your memory, see
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>> I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller
>> particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than
>> pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone *proves* the
>> existence of a magnetic monopole.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
>> produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
>> those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
>> muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
>> particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
>> LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
>> particles are the results of this change in behavior.
>>
>> Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
>> change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
>> If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
>> become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.
>>
>> But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this
>> way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism
>> is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
>> quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
>> fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
>> experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
>> is the monopole magnetic force.
>>
>> But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
>> correct in its most basic aspects.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
>>> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
>>> "evidences".
>>>
>>> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>>>
 Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
 conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.

 AA

 On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
 physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

He didn't seem to display

2017-04-01 22:20 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to
> display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did
> good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way about some nuclear
> phenomena than before.
>
> 2017-04-01 21:43 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>>  I suppose it is impossible for you to  consider that one could keep up
>> to date in a subject if motivated to do so.
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

Useless aggressiveness. It's not impossible, it is just that he seem to
display this kind of knowledge before. So, working with a specialist, did
good to him. He seemed to answer in a more casual way about some nuclear
phenomena than before.

2017-04-01 21:43 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

>  I suppose it is impossible for you to  consider that one could keep up to
> date in a subject if motivated to do so.
>

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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I don't know and don't 
have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to 
understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever 
demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real.  The 
proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both 
cases I'd rather wait and see.


AA

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to 
support  monopole flux lines.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field 
(almost a monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's
belief than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone
/proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.

AA


On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the
weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are
the effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak
force produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now
factoring into his theory. But these particles are just the
effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a
condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
particles are the results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of
extremes in energy. If enough energy is present, then the
fundamental forces will gradually become unified. This is the
main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in
this way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special
type of magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature.
Rossi has picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that
changes the action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong.
But informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic
force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR
theory correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident.
And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all
is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt
that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does
nothing for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge
of particle physics. He probably learned about this when
writing his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Partly true.  A lot of your professors probably went to school about 
that time.  I went to college before that.  I suppose it is impossible 
for you to  consider that one could keep up to date in a subject if 
motivated to do so.  In passing. General Relativity was discovered 1905 
- 1915.


AA

On 4/1/2017 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long 
after it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle 
physics to study relativity.


2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:


Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have
no reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for
many years.
AA

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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole
quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support
 monopole flux lines.

The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field
(almost a monopole formated magnetic field).

This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller particles.
> They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief than pinned down
> by experiment.  Let me know when someone *proves* the existence of a
> magnetic monopole.
>
> AA
>
>
> On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
> produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
> those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
> muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
> particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
> LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
> particles are the results of this change in behavior.
>
> Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
> change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
> If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
> become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.
>
> But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this
> way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism
> is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
> quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
> fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
> experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
> is the monopole magnetic force.
>
> But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
> correct in its most basic aspects.
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
>> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
>> "evidences".
>>
>> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>>
>>> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
>>> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
>>> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
>>> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

I mean, not after the theory of neutrinos was conceived in the standard
model.

2017-04-01 19:42 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after
> it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to
> study relativity.
>
> 2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>> Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no
>> reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.
>> AA
>>
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long after
it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle physics to
study relativity.

2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

> Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no
> reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.
> AA
>
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller 
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief 
than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone /proves/ the 
existence of a magnetic monopole.


AA

On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak 
force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the 
effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak force 
produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into 
his theory. But these particles are just the effects of what the 
strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong 
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the results of 
this change in behavior.


Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature 
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of extremes 
in energy. If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces 
will gradually become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.


But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this 
way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of 
magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has 
picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the 
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by 
other LENR experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active 
magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic force.


But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR 
theory correct in its most basic aspects.


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha > wrote:


I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And
you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong
with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing

for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing
his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com 

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force
produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how
those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion,
muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these
particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR.
LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
particles are the results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot
change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy.
If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually
become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this way.
As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism is
applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the
fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by other LENR
experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format
is the monopole magnetic force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR theory
correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem
> to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH
> "evidences".
>
> 2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :
>
>> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
>> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
>> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no 
reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.

AA

On 4/1/2017 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you 
seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH 
"evidences".


2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield >:


Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for

your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing his
last paper.





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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you seem to
forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield :

> Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to
> conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.
>
> AA
>
> On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
> physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to 
conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.


AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle 
physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle
physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.