Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

That's why it is sometimes necessary to get inside the community.   
Don't tell Nature Genetics but I am a telecoms engineer who stopped 
doing biology at 14 because I wanted to do music instead, and wheedled 
my way into a university Life Sciences dept many years later when I was 
made redundant from my job in telecoms.


Nigel

On 07/07/2018 20:17, H LV wrote:
Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts 
within their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the 
Sphinx and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and 
climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of 
years early than they claim.


Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer > wrote:


I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong. I think it
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are
sometimes wrong.

To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives
rise to the problems we now have with people distrusting the
science of vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all
sometimes wrong, and should admit it when we are, as I will be
doing during my talk at the water conference in October.  It is my
experience that scientists do admit they are wrong if presented
with good data.  We managed to get the Nature genetics editors to
admit that a paper that they published a year earlier was largly
incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by presenting
them with some good data.

Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough, and yet the
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been
designed to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was
not.

As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack
of developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy
theorists fire.

Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”

— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report
flaws in their own work.

https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a
website where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe
this is it.

There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in
fizzix smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in
fact no group on the planet has performed more misguided science
than ITER and its predecessors. Despite good intentions they have
been completely dishonest and reckless with spending.

Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy…
“pathological” come to mind but I suspect there is more poor
science in medicine than any other endeavor. The financial
rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick, rich people will
gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.

Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial
inventor is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former
head of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult
then self-materializes around the dead  inventor, especially if
he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to investors – and/or was
“in touch with angels” beforehand.

One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has
hundreds of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was
murdered, despite the contrary evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which
is not out of the question, it could be the start of a new
religion… perhaps with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.

Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[H LV]

Experts are much more likely to accept criticism from fellow experts within
their community than from experts outside their community.
For example egyptologists who present themselves as experts on the Sphinx
and the Pyramids don't want to hear the geological and climatological
arguments that the construction of the Sphinx began many thousands of years
early than they claim.

Harry

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it would
> be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes wrong.
>
> To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to
> the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of
> vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, and
> should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at the water
> conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do admit they
> are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the Nature
> genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year earlier
> was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) by
> presenting them with some good data.
>
> Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the
> experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed to
> produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.
>
> As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of
> developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists
> fire.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> Quote of the Day
>
> “People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As
> scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”
>
> — Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of Confidence
> Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in their own work.
>
>
>
> https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/
>
>
>
> Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website
> where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.
>
>
>
> There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix
> smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group on the
> planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its predecessors.
> Despite good intentions they have been completely dishonest and reckless
> with spending.
>
>
>
> Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” come
> to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than any other
> endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, since sick,
> rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for the miracle cure.
>
>
>
> Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor is a
> mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, Elizabeth
> Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes around the dead
>  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly after talking to
> investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” beforehand.
>
>
>
> One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds of
> dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite the
> contrary evidence.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk
>
>
>
> If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not out
> of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps with Stan
> as the baptizer, so to speak.
>
>
>
> Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:quote of the day (MIT)

[Nigel Dyer]

I hesitate to say this, but I think Julia may be wrong.   I think it 
would be better to say that people (including scientists) are sometimes 
wrong.


To say that people (including scientists) are often wrong gives rise to 
the problems we now have with people distrusting the science of 
vaccinations and global warming.  However we are all sometimes wrong, 
and should admit it when we are, as I will be doing during my talk at 
the water conference in October.  It is my experience that scientists do 
admit they are wrong if presented with good data.  We managed to get the 
Nature genetics editors to admit that a paper that they published a year 
earlier was largly incorrect (https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3392) 
by presenting them with some good data.


Too often in LENR the data is simply not good enough,  and yet the 
experiment/demonstration looks as if it could/should have been designed 
to produce good data, leaving people wondering why it was not.


As to whether Stan was the baptiser, time will tell, but the lack of 
developments that came from the car adds fuel to the conspiracy 
theorists fire.


Nigel


On 03/07/2018 14:53, JonesBeene wrote:


Quote of the Day

“People will defend their scientific claims until their death. As 
scientists, we should be aware that people are often wrong.”


— Julia Rohrer, one of the researchers working on the Loss of 
Confidence Project, a website where psychologists can report flaws in 
their own work.


https://undark.org/article/loss-of-confidence-project-replication-crisis/

Good for them. Every field should be so diligent. What about a website 
where LENR flawed claims can be reported? Oops, maybe this is it.


There are fields where poor science is endemic, in fact some in fizzix 
smirk at calling those other fields “science,” when in fact no group 
on the planet has performed more misguided science than ITER and its 
predecessors. Despite good intentions they have been completely 
dishonest and reckless with spending.


Julia could have a field-day with alternative energy… “pathological” 
come to mind but I suspect there is more poor science in medicine than 
any other endeavor. The financial rewards are the easiest to come by, 
since sick, rich people will gladly hand over their last dollar for 
the miracle cure.


Curiously, the best thing that can happen to a controversial inventor 
is a mysterious death. If that happens to the former head of Theranos, 
Elizabeth Holmes will become Saint Liz. A cult then self-materializes 
around the dead  inventor, especially if he/she dies unexpectedly 
after talking to investors – and/or was “in touch with angels” 
beforehand.


One “water fuel” inventor, certainly a messiah candidate, has hundreds 
of dedicated followers who adamantly believe he was murdered, despite 
the contrary evidence.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_YHiZZpKKk

If someone comes along with a real water-fuel technology, which is not 
out of the question, it could be the start of a new religion… perhaps 
with Stan as the baptizer, so to speak.


Do not be surprised if AR’s next iteration is a water-splitter.

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jczBXmr7yo

This continuous video shows startup of a HHO Hot Cat from room temperature
to 831F

I wonder what electrode that the water clusters of come off of, the
hydrogen electrode, the oxygen electrode or both.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM
>
> This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact
> with the catalytic convertor substrate.
>
> When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat
> capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO
> gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw
>>
>> This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
>> heat in an auto catalectic converter.
>>
>> The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
>>> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
>>> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
>>> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>>>
>>> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>>>
>>> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid
>>> capable of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization
>>> function will support the Mouse function.
>>>
>>> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
>>> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>>>
>>> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint
>>> sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>>>
>>> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation
>>> effect during atomization.
>>>
>>> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter
>>> from a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>>>
>>> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
>>> catalytic converters as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>>>
>>> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
>>> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>>>
>>> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
>>> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>
>
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
> start over.
>

 Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the
 hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I
 would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:

 "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
 experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
 explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
 should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
 theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
 modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
 results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
 competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
 up."


>
> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
> these hypotheses as practical.
>
>
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>  What next?
>

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
> experiments.
>
>
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>

 I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
 answers to these last two questions.


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM

This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact with
the catalytic convertor substrate.

When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat
capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO
gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw
>
> This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
> heat in an auto catalectic converter.
>
> The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
>> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
>> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>>
>> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
>> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>>
>> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>>
>> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid
>> capable of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization
>> function will support the Mouse function.
>>
>> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
>> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>>
>> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
>> air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>>
>> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation
>> effect during atomization.
>>
>> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from
>> a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>>
>> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
>> catalytic converters as follows:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>>
>> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
>> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>>
>> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
>> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:

 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
 experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).


 I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
 behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
 start over.

>>>
>>> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
>>> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
>>> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>>>
>>> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
>>> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
>>> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
>>> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
>>> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
>>> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
>>> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
>>> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
>>> up."
>>>
>>>

 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
 these hypotheses as practical.


 Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
  What next?

>>>
 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
 experiments.


 What good are the results from a flawed theory?

>>>
>>> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
>>> answers to these last two questions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw

This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into
heat in an auto catalectic converter.

The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse"


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
> "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
> function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.
>
> We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source
> (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).
>
> It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.
>
> Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable
> of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization function will
> support the Mouse function.
>
> I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
> support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.
>
> These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
> air brush, diesel fuel injector.
>
> I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect
> during atomization.
>
> The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from
> a late modeled car either new or slightly used.
>
> Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto
> catalytic converters as follows:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw
>
> Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
> nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.
>
> You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
> produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
>>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>>>
>>>
>>> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
>>> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
>>> start over.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
>> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
>> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>>
>> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
>> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
>> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
>> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
>> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
>> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
>> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
>> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
>> up."
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
>>> these hypotheses as practical.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>>>  What next?
>>>
>>
>>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>>
>>> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>>>
>>
>> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
>> answers to these last two questions.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the
"mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose
function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction.

We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse)
and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat).

It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch.

Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable
of supporting solid nano material will do.  This atomization function will
support the Mouse function.

I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to
support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor.

These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer,
air brush, diesel fuel injector.

I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect
during atomization.

The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a
late modeled car either new or slightly used.

Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic
converters as follows:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw

Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of
nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it.

You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to
produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity.




On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>>
>>
>> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
>> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
>> start over.
>>
>
> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
>
> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
> competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
> up."
>
>
>>
>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of
>> these hypotheses as practical.
>>
>>
>> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>>  What next?
>>
>
>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
>> experiments.
>>
>>
>> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>>
>
> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
> answers to these last two questions.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the 
>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
> 
> 
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior 
> in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to start over.
> 
> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical 
> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest 
> that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:
> 
> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this 
> experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an 
> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should 
> be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory 
> predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said 
> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results 
> and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing 
> theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up." 

I could not say it better!

Ed Storms
>  
> 
>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these 
>> hypotheses as practical.
> 
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.  What 
> next?
> 
>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these 
>> experiments.
> 
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?  
> 
> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail 
> answers to these last two questions.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
>
>
> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with
> behavior in LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to
> start over.
>

Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical
attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would
suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease:

"If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this
experimental protocol, then its no good.  If your theory does have an
explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there
should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your
theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results.  Enumerate said
modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted
results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of
competing theories.  If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut
up."


>
> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these
> hypotheses as practical.
>
>
> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.
>  What next?
>

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
> experiments.
>
>
> What good are the results from a flawed theory?
>

I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail
answers to these last two questions.

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Ed and Jones--

I'm glad I believe in the old adage "No Friction No Motion"  and that it 
applies to debate of LENR.


Carry On.

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Edmund Storms" 

To: 
Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day


Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different 
and unrelated phenomenon.  Consequently, a discussion is impossible because 
we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your 
concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief.


On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, 
regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how 
to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do 
you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me 
how to do this so that I can replicate his success?


Ed Storms
On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


From: Edmund Storms

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
plays a role.

Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you 
not

consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.

Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply 
lucky
or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who 
want

to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
ways.

These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP 
and

triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
practicality if Ni-H is real.

Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and 
instead

marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If 
not,

it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
not relevant to Ni-H.

At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
to understand what makes his work completely different from your old 
school

experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast.

That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
interfere.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and 
unrelated phenomenon.  Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are 
discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is 
correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief.  

On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, 
regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to 
make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know 
how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do 
this so that I can replicate his success? 

Ed Storms
On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

>   From: Edmund Storms 
> 
>   Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
> to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
> make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
> plays a role. 
> 
> Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
> cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not
> consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.
> 
> Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
> SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky
> or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want
> to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
> ways. 
> 
> These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and
> triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
> as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
> practicality if Ni-H is real.
> 
> Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead
> marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
> experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not,
> it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
> not relevant to Ni-H.
> 
> At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
> to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school
> experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. 
> 
> That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
> which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
> glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
> interfere.
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Edmund Storms 

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied
to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to
make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment
plays a role. 

Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of
cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not
consider SPP to be a "chemical environment" ? It is not nuclear.

Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new
SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky
or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want
to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better
ways. 

These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and
triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion
as being essentially "lost-in-time." It is valid but it is dead-end for
practicality if Ni-H is real.

Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead
marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in
experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not,
it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are
not relevant to Ni-H.

At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try
to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school
experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. 

That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN
which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some
glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not
interfere.

Jones




<>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> From: Kevin O'Malley
>  
> And also perhaps here:
>  
> Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).  
> That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on 
> Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

Jones, please tell me where Sinha proposed to use a laser to remove energy from 
a system. I have only one paper in my collection by this author that describes 
using a laser to improve coupling between the Lochon and the lattice to 
increase the fusion rate. 

Laser stimulation of low-energy nuclear reactions in deuterated palladium, 
Current  Sci., 91 (7) 907-912 (2006)

Ed Storms
>  
> T
>  
>  
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

A good path James, but with a few potholes.

On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote:

> The critical path seems to me to be:
> 
> 1) Economically elicit statistically significant results.

Rossi has done this but he has not reveal how. 

> 2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol.

Many ideas have been suggested but only Rossi has demonstrated a device.

> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the 
> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).

I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in 
LENR or with established natural law.  I suggest we need to start over.

> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these 
> hypotheses as practical.

Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories.  What 
next?

> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these 
> experiments.

What good are the results from a flawed theory?  

We need more competent theoreticians to take an interest and a way to evaluate 
proposed concepts. Right now we have a collection of established theories that 
exists as islands with no relationship to each other nor to what is generally 
known about LENR.  

Ed Storms

> 6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be 
> attained.
> 7) Repeat from step 2.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This 
> means we need to understand the NAE.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[James Bowery]

The critical path seems to me to be:

1) Economically elicit statistically significant results.
2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol.
3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the
experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses).
4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these
hypotheses as practical.
5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these
experiments.
6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be
attained.
7) Repeat from step 2.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This
> means we need to understand the NAE.
>

> Ed Storms
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

And also perhaps here:

 

Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).  
That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on 
Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

 

The interesting thing about laser cooling is that the photons from the laser 
are typically very hot. A blue laser can have photons with equivalent 
temperature of 15,000 degrees.

 

As far back as the “Einstein refrigerator” we have known that one can use heat 
to produce cooling - but with laser irradiation it is different. A laser photon 
can cause an atom to emit photons of a higher average energy than the one it 
absorbed from the laser - and thereafter cooling will follow, but only so long 
as the cooled atom does not heat up via absorbing low energy radiation from its 
containment structure – the same one which absorbed the very hot re-emission 
from the cooled atom. 

 

Thus laser cooling only works well at extremely low pressure, and therefore 
laser cooling to form a BEC may not be relevant to LENR at all - since we are 
going for high power density, and a vacuum is not conducive to that.

 

However, when everything is tuned to a phonon frequency which is the operating 
temperature of the hot pressurized reactor – say 350 degrees C, then a laser 
which is radiating photons in the IR of about that energy (the 15 THz band 
which NASA loves), we can bring the a entire system into a kind of 3-way or 
triple coherence called “superradiance”. This is photon, phonon and magnon 
(spin wave) coherence. Triple coherence promotes tunneling. A magnetic field 
promotes magnons.

 

A coherent system, even a hot coherent system – which has triple-coherent 
energy dynamics will promote LENR – that is the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion 
simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work 
on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. These are 
examples of mental games physics encourages that may or may not have any 
relationship to reality. Only years of effort supported by significant funding 
would be required to determine if these ideas have any value to physics or to 
LENR. 

Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we 
need to understand the NAE. The details that these speculations address will be 
explored later by future graduate students.  

The discussions on Vortex would also be more useful if they focused on the NAE 
and how it can be created in real materials. 

Ed Storms


On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> Kevin,
>  
> If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a 
> Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR 
> technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic – can it be applied 
> at high temperature.
>  
> All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal 
> issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed 
> with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual 
> experiments after all the years.
>  
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4
>  
>  
> From: Kevin O'Malley
> 
>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate 
> seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an 
> explanation of cold fusion:  ***Also perhaps here.
> 
> New Journal of Physics Volume 10 April 2008
> R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011
> 
>  
> 

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

Kevin,

 

If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a
Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR
technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic - can it be applied
at high temperature.

 

All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal
issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed
with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual
experiments after all the years.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4

 

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 


 Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:  ***Also perhaps here.


New Journal of Physics   Volume 10
 April 2008
 

R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011 

 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

And also perhaps here:
Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it).
That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on
Vortex-L until I pointed it out.

  https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77012.html




http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2010/jul10/pinning-transition.html

Pinning Transition from a Luttinger-liquid to an insulated phase
Mott-insulator
--


*Pinning atoms into order: In an international first, physicists of the
University of Innsbruck, Austria have experimentally observed a quantum
phenomenon, where an arbitrarily weak perturbation causes atoms to build an
organized structure from an initially unorganized one. The scientific team
headed by Hanns-Christoph Nägerl has published a paper about quantum phase
transitions in a one dimensional quantum lattice in the scientific journal
Nature.*
With a Bose-Einstein condensate of cesium atoms, scientists at the
Institute for Experimental Physics of the University of Innsbruck have
created one dimensional structures in an optical lattice of laser light. In
these quantum lattices or wires the single atoms are aligned next to each
other with laser light preventing them from breaking ranks


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Also perhaps here, this smart guy:
>
> *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger
> liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical
> Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011).
>
>
> *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in
> two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation
> Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� *
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein
>> Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell,
>> not as an explanation of cold fusion:
>> ***Also perhaps here.
>>
>> New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
>>  April 2008
>> 
>>
>> R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
>> doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
>>  Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
>> dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
>> Matter
>>
>> R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
>> Show 
>> affiliations
>>
>>  Tag this 
>> article
>>  PDF
>> (862 
>> KB)
>>  View
>> article 
>>
>>  Abstract  
>> References Cited
>> By  
>> Metrics
>>
>> Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
>> Matter
>>
>> Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
>> quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
>> fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
>> exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
>> precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
>> evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
>> analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
>> zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
>> bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
>> crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low
>> density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
>> shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
>> describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
>> 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
>> hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
>> the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
>> collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
>> conditions that coul

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Axil Axil]

http://news.yahoo.com/paradox-solved-information-escape-black-hole-104543630.html

The "BOSENOVA" seen in the DGT might be a nanoscopic version of the
information restoration process proposed for the end of life process of
black holes.

Rovelli agrees: "Information is never too concentrated, and it can escape
with the explosion of the star." This release of information, he estimates,
would generate radiation with a wavelength of about 10^-14 cm -- the
wavelength of gamma rays.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory?
>
> First stage, the 1DLEC.  As previously discussed.
> https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html
>
> 2nd stage, RPF
>
> The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets
> triggered.  RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even
> if it means shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen.
>
> This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard
> to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole
> thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the
> universe has been initiated.  It explains why there's gamma rays during
> startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC
> creating) process,  but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no
> gammas.
>
> Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
> seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
> explanation of cold fusion:
>
>
> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model
> Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model
>
> Olivier 
> Lenoble,
> Valentin 
> Zagrebnov
>   05/2006;
> Source: arXiv 
>
> *ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation
> in the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in
> this one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson
> random potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal
> long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged
> one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the
> Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation
> in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For
> the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that
> this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single "largest" interval
> of logarithmic size.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> From: Kevin O'Malley
>>
>> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen
>> or
>> H3+, and it
>> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
>> Universe, so it is
>> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
>> common fusion
>> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
>> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>>
>> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>>
>> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
>> does
>> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
>> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
>> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
>> trihydrogen anion."
>>
>> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
>> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have
>> no
>> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
>> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
>> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
>> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>>
>> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
>> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
>> (it
>> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
>> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>>
>> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
>> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
>> spin
>> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
>> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 1/2 and it is slightly lower
>> energy.
>>
>> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
>> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
>> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
>> from
>> low-to-high for net excess. Such 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think this paper might address the "coupling term in the Hamiltonian"
you're asking about.

http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/3777/1/dalmonte_marcello_tesi.pdf


1.1.1 Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem
One of the main general results in 1D physics is related to the
so called spontaneous symmetry breaking
(SSB) mechanism[12, 13, 14]. In statistical
mechanics and quantum field theory, when a certain ground state exhibits
less symmetry than the related Hamiltonian, one says that a certain sym-
metry has been broken: that’s the essence of SSB. While various interesting
phenomena, such as the emergence of superconductivity, can be explained
in these terms, the most intuitive view on the subject is usually associ-
ated with the emergence of spontaneous magnetization in solids: given
a certain ordered configuration C which minimizes the energy functional,
an exactly opposite configuration C ′with the same energy always exists.
Nonetheless, the state of the system is not invariant under transformation
C↔C′, and thus this exchange symmetry is broken[13].
The curious point is, in low dimensional systems, SSB suffers from
a no-go theorem known as the Mermin-Wagner(MW) theorem
(or Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg(MWH) theorem). In their seminal paper [1
5], Mermin and Wagner showed that the Heisenberg model
cannot display a finite magnetization m(h) at finite temperature in one and
two dimension, and at zero temperature in one dimension, if the interac-
tion coefficients are short-range...


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Jones said:
>
>  In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
>>>
>> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. <<
>
> The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a
> magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap,
> potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect
> transitions.
>
> Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like?  Any
> references you know of?
>
>
> Bob
> - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day
>
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
> H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
> Universe, so it is
> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
> common fusion
> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>
> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>
> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
> does
> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
> trihydrogen anion."
>
> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>
> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
> (it
> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>
> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
> spin
> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
> energy.
>
> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.
>
> More on that later.
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

Also perhaps here, this smart guy:

*A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger
liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical
Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011).


*Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in
two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation
Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� *


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

>
>  Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein
> Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell,
> not as an explanation of cold fusion:
> ***Also perhaps here.
>
> New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
>  April 2008
> 
>
> R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
> doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
>  Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
> dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
> Matter
>
> R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
> Show 
> affiliations
>
>  Tag this 
> article
>  PDF
> (862 
> KB)
>  View
> article 
>
>  Abstract  
> References Cited
> By  
> Metrics
>
> Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored 
> Matter
>
> Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
> quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
> fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
> exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
> precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
> evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
> analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
> zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
> bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
> crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low
> density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
> shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
> describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
> 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
> hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
> the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
> collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
> conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper
> provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above
> results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations
> of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas
> and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

 Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:
***Also perhaps here.

New Journal of Physics  Volume 10
 April 2008


R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011
 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with
dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored
Matter

R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6
Show 
affiliations

 Tag this 
article
PDF
(862 
KB)
View
article 

 Abstract 
References Cited
By 
Metrics

Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored
Matter

Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to
quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing
fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be
exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and
precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where
evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by
analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at
zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and
bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole
crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks-Girardeau at low
density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also
shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to
describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined
1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL
hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to
the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the
collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic
conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper
provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above
results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations
of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas
and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory?

First stage, the 1DLEC.  As previously discussed.
https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html

2nd stage, RPF

The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets triggered.
RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even if it means
shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen.

This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard
to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole
thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the
universe has been initiated.  It explains why there's gamma rays during
startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC
creating) process,  but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no
gammas.

Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate
seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an
explanation of cold fusion:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model
Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model

Olivier 
Lenoble,
Valentin 
Zagrebnov
  05/2006;
Source: arXiv 

*ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation in
the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in this
one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson random
potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal
long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged
one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the
Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation
in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For
the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that
this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single "largest" interval
of logarithmic size.



On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
> H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
> Universe, so it is
> very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
> common fusion
> reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
> Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.
>
> You are an intelligent observer :-)
>
> The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course,
> does
> not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
> the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
> two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
> trihydrogen anion."
>
> In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
> of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
> identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
> presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
> very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
> continually "try to fuse" but cannot.
>
> The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
> energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies
> (it
> is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
> supply excess energy without gamma radiation).
>
> Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
> Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear
> spin
> of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
> anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
> energy.
>
> In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
> between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
> to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back
> from
> low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
> underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.
>
> More on that later.
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Jones said:


In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF

between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. <<

The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a 
magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap, 
potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect 
transitions.


Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like?  Any 
references you know of?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day


From: Kevin O'Malley

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
common fusion
reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.

You are an intelligent observer :-)

The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course, does
not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
trihydrogen anion."

In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
continually "try to fuse" but cannot.

The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it
is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
supply excess energy without gamma radiation).

Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin
of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
energy.

In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD.

More on that later.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin O'Malley 

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or
H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the
Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most
common fusion 
reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the
Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.  

You are an intelligent observer :-)

The Wiki entry on "trihydrogen" has supporting details - but of course, does
not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in
the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other
two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a "fractional
trihydrogen anion."

In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead
of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no
identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are
presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be
very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons
continually "try to fuse" but cannot.

The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess
energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it
is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to
supply excess energy without gamma radiation). 

Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para.
Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin
of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is
anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower
energy. 

In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF
between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass
to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from
low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the
underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. 

More on that later.

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones:

It is compelling that the "protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
very common."  It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion
reaction in the universe.

I consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory:  Simplest is best.



On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
>
> ... he [Admiral Steidle] could be referring to something else instead of
> LENR and ... it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind
> of
> nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
> what would that be?
>
> OK. Let me clarify that rhetorical question, since the Admiral did mention
> "nuclear" but not LENR per se, and there is a third or hybrid possibility.
> Actually there is a fourth possibility too.
>
> For two decades there has been the question of a hybrid of LENR and hot
> fusion, which could mean something like LENR with uranium or thorium. There
> are papers on the LENR-CANR site relative to this with actual experiments.
> Curiously, the thorium version seems to be endothermic.
>
> Presumably much of the interior heat of Earth could be provided this way a
> hybrid LENR reaction with a heavy metal - assuming that there is
> "neutron-less" fission which could happen with a non-fissile isotope
> (U-238)
> via LENR and a proton which looks like a neutron (virtual neutron). This is
> old hat.
>
> As fate would have it, this concept turned up on Rossi's blog yesterday...
> under the guise of the a putative new physics called "tresino" physics.
> LOL.
> But to cut through the crap, this is little more a blatant theft of Randell
> Mills theory and is twenty years old.
>
> Exactly like Mills' "hydrino hydride" (tm) - the so-called tresino has a
> net
> negative charge and is quite small (thousands of time smaller than the
> hydrogen atom by volume). On vortex, we have been calling this species f/H
> or fractional hydrogen, since Mills has trademarked the name "hydrino".
>
> Other names are dense hydrogen, DDL hydrogen, IRH (inverted Rydberg
> hydrogen) hydrogen clusters etc. The ion may be stable or not, depending on
> which theory is employed since it is not proved.
>
> The ion would stable as a negatively charged ion under Mills theory. It
> could possibly interact with a heavy metal but the more interesting thing,
> by far, is the 3 proton reaction.
>
> P+(f/H-)+P = ?
>
> ANSWER: A version of the trihydrogen cation is the result and it is far
> from
> rare.
>
> This species is also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
> is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
> very common. On Earth it seems to be rare, but possibly not in condensed
> matter.
>
> H3+ is stable in the interstellar medium, which is a place that anions are
> not as stable as cations - due to the low temperature and low density of
> interstellar space. In condensed matter it would be stable due to lots of
> valence electrons spreading and hiding the net positive charge.
>
> "The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the Interstellar
> Medium is unparalleled by any other molecular ion." Wiki quote.
>
> In short, for LENR - using the H2- anion as Mills claims is possible, but
> this cation could be the real basis of the reversible fusion reaction,
> which
> has been promoted here by me in the past as RPF - the diproton reaction.
>
> But instead of that particular diproton route, the molecular isomer H3+
> would proceed with higher probability in condensed matter (most likely). It
> would still be RPF with the consecutive Lamb Shift energy anomaly,
> happening
> at THz frequencies, but the cation never splits apart - it just hums along,
> dumping excess proton mass. This continues until that mass is converted to
> energy (7 parts per million of extra mass or ~7keV per proton).
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-

... he [Admiral Steidle] could be referring to something else instead of
LENR and ... it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind of
nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
what would that be?

OK. Let me clarify that rhetorical question, since the Admiral did mention
"nuclear" but not LENR per se, and there is a third or hybrid possibility.
Actually there is a fourth possibility too.

For two decades there has been the question of a hybrid of LENR and hot
fusion, which could mean something like LENR with uranium or thorium. There
are papers on the LENR-CANR site relative to this with actual experiments.
Curiously, the thorium version seems to be endothermic.

Presumably much of the interior heat of Earth could be provided this way a
hybrid LENR reaction with a heavy metal - assuming that there is
"neutron-less" fission which could happen with a non-fissile isotope (U-238)
via LENR and a proton which looks like a neutron (virtual neutron). This is
old hat.

As fate would have it, this concept turned up on Rossi's blog yesterday...
under the guise of the a putative new physics called "tresino" physics. LOL.
But to cut through the crap, this is little more a blatant theft of Randell
Mills theory and is twenty years old.

Exactly like Mills' "hydrino hydride" (tm) - the so-called tresino has a net
negative charge and is quite small (thousands of time smaller than the
hydrogen atom by volume). On vortex, we have been calling this species f/H
or fractional hydrogen, since Mills has trademarked the name "hydrino". 

Other names are dense hydrogen, DDL hydrogen, IRH (inverted Rydberg
hydrogen) hydrogen clusters etc. The ion may be stable or not, depending on
which theory is employed since it is not proved.

The ion would stable as a negatively charged ion under Mills theory. It
could possibly interact with a heavy metal but the more interesting thing,
by far, is the 3 proton reaction.

P+(f/H-)+P = ?  

ANSWER: A version of the trihydrogen cation is the result and it is far from
rare.

This species is also known as protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it
is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is
very common. On Earth it seems to be rare, but possibly not in condensed
matter.

H3+ is stable in the interstellar medium, which is a place that anions are
not as stable as cations - due to the low temperature and low density of
interstellar space. In condensed matter it would be stable due to lots of
valence electrons spreading and hiding the net positive charge.

"The role that H3+ plays in the gas-phase chemistry of the Interstellar
Medium is unparalleled by any other molecular ion." Wiki quote. 

In short, for LENR - using the H2- anion as Mills claims is possible, but
this cation could be the real basis of the reversible fusion reaction, which
has been promoted here by me in the past as RPF - the diproton reaction. 

But instead of that particular diproton route, the molecular isomer H3+
would proceed with higher probability in condensed matter (most likely). It
would still be RPF with the consecutive Lamb Shift energy anomaly, happening
at THz frequencies, but the cation never splits apart - it just hums along,
dumping excess proton mass. This continues until that mass is converted to
energy (7 parts per million of extra mass or ~7keV per proton).

Jones



<>

RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Jones Beene]

Yes - Bob - a related blog is where the quote came from. But it is undated,
Fran. 

And yes, he could be referring to ZPE instead of LENR, but to my thinking,
it is too soon to try to differentiate the two, since both could be part of
the same anomaly.

Seldon's page

http://seldontech.com/company/

indicates that Steidle joined them before it the LENR connection came to
light, so it is remotely possible that he is referring to another kind of
nanotube technology which does not involve LENR, or ZPE - but seriously -
what would that be?

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The "Cold Fusion Now" web page has an item yesterday which parallels what
you have attributed to Steidle and makes the connection to cold fusion
clearly. Steidle and Christopher Cooper must be close. Steidle certainly has
had extensive and complete access to Govt. R&D, including, it seems, 
cold fusion.  The Christopher H Cooper thread on Vortex-l is to the point.

Bob
 

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Nice alert--

The "Cold Fusion Now" web page has an item yesterday which parallels what 
you have attributed to Steidle and makes the connection to cold fusion 
clearly.   Steidle and Christopher Cooper must be close.  Steidle certainly 
has had extensive and complete access to Govt. R&D, including, it seems, 
cold fusion.  The Christopher H Cooper thread on Vortex-l is to the point.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:16 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Quote of the day


"Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may 
substantially

change the current state of power distribution."

-Retired U.S. Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle

Admiral Craig E. Steidle - USN, USNA, NASA. Steidle served as the Director
of the DoD Joint Advanced Strike Technology Office - DoD's largest 
program.

He joined Seldon Technologies recently.

This bears repeating - that a top-level planner with extraordinary
experience believes that nanotube based nuclear power systems is the 
future

of energy - and presumably not merely for distributed power of for the
military but for the Nation.

OK - he did not say LENR by name but that is what Seldon Technologies is
moving into. Does any seriously doubt that this quote relates to what the
Admiral knows about nanotube-based LENR?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the Day

[Jones Beene]

Steven Krivit wrote:


the earth is flat, or is the center of the universe
Darwin got it wrong
a "young earth"
no new taxes...
lone gunman
"I didn't inhale"



I better stop before venturing into political incorrectness...





Oh, please you're on a roll --

"I didn't have sex with that woman."



Ha - OK first let me correct the quote authorship situation (thanks also 
to Steve's keen eye, or ear). The quote appears on the Kowalski "Cold 
Fusion" site, which by the way seems to be drawing a lot of readers:


...but on relook - it is not totally clear who said what - but it now 
looks very much like John Neergaard is the sayer, not the professor:


Here is the page - about halfway down ---

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/299hydrinos.html

John Neergaard (BS ChE, PhD Ph) should have been credited.


Back, due to popular demand - to a listmania selection of "improbable 
statements" (aka- "lies")


* The check is in the mail.

* I'll respect you in the morning.

* I'm from your government, and I am here to help you.

* It's only a cold sore.

* You get this one, I'll pay next time.

* My wife doesn't understand me.

* Trust me, I'll take care of everything.

* Of course I love you.

* I am getting a divorce.

* Drinking? Why, no, Officer.

* It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing.

* I never watch television except for PBS.

* ...but we can still be good friends.

* She means nothing to me.

* Don't worry, I can go 20 miles when the gauge is on "empty."

* I gave at the office.

* Don't worry, he's never bitten anyone.

* I'll call you later.

* We'll release the upgrade by the end of the year.

* Read my lips: no new taxes

* I've never done anything like this before

* Now, I'm going to tell you the truth

* It's supposed to make that noise.

* I *love* your new !

* ...then take a left. You can't miss it.

* Yes, I did.

* Don't worry, it's OK -- I'm sterile...

Re: [Vo]:Quote of the Day

[Steven Krivit]

the earth is flat, or is the center of the universe
Darwin got it wrong
a "young earth"
no new taxes...
lone gunman
"I didn't inhale"

I better stop before venturing into political incorrectness...

Jones


Oh, please you're on a roll --

"I didn't have sex with that woman."

;)
s

Re: [Vo]: Quote of the Day

[Terry Blanton]

On 12/14/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Quote of the Day

"If I was 25 again


Attributed to George Carlin:

Do you realize that the only time in our lives when we like to get old
is when we're kids? If you're less than 10 years old, you're so
excited about aging that you think in fractions.

"How old are you?" "I'm four and a half!" You're never thirty-six and
a half. You're four and a half, going on five!  That's the key.

You get into your teens, now they can't hold you back. You jump to the
next number, or even a few ahead.  "How old are you?" "I'm gonna be
16!" You could be 13, but hey, you're gonna  be 16!

And then the greatest day of your life . . . you become 21. Even the
words sound like a ceremony . . . YOU BECOME 21. YE!!!

But then you turn 30. Oooohh, what happened there? Makes you sound
like bad milk.  He TURNED; we had to throw him out. There's no fun
now, you're just a sour-dumpling. What's wrong? What's changed?

You BECOME 21, you TURN 30, then you're PUSHING 40.  Whoa! Put on the
brakes, it's all slipping away. Before you know it, you REACH 50 . .
.. and your dreams are gone.

But wait!!!  You MAKE it to 60.  You didn't think you would!  So you
BECOME 21, TURN 30, PUSH 40, REACH 50 and MAKE it to 60.

You've built up so much speed that you HIT 70!  After that it's a
day-by-day thing; you HIT Wednesday!  You get into your 80s and every
day is a complete cycle; you HIT lunch; you TURN 4:30; you REACH
bedtime.  And it doesn't end there. Into the 90s, you start going
backwards; "I Was JUST 92."

Then a strange thing happens. If you make it over 100, you become a
little kid again. "I'm 100 and a half!"

May you all make it to a healthy 100 and a half!!