Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
It may be a matter of pressure. I would look at the bugs near thermal heat vents at the bottom of the ocean or deep underground when the temperature exceeds boiling for adaptation to LENR. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
How bacteria stabilize nuclear waste: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/how-bacteria-clean-up-nuclear-waste-110909.htm On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
A better reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906144558.htm On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How bacteria stabilize nuclear waste: http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/how-bacteria-clean-up-nuclear-waste-110909.htm On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
Material strengths are measured in units of the physical dimension pressure. All evolution would have to do is concentrate nano-scale materials of the right strength and composition. That seems plausible as, for example, magnetite crystals have been found widely in organismshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetite#Biological_occurrences -- and the selective pressure has apparently been to fulfill a very peculiar need to detect electromagnetic fields in those organisms. Energy is hardly peculiar as a need for organisms so it should have been that much more attractive to find metabolic paths that produced proper nanocrystals for NAEs. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It may be a matter of pressure. I would look at the bugs near thermal heat vents at the bottom of the ocean or deep underground when the temperature exceeds boiling for adaptation to LENR. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms runs counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not saying most thought about LENR energy is right, you understand -- I'm just saying that if we explain away this miracle by that means, we should certainly question such claims of harmlessness of LENR radiation. As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments) then we have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous evolutionary cost to such radiation hardening that kept it from spreading throughout life? Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that cost barrier to get the benefit of the BNAE? On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
We don't even know if the biological transmutation of elements has a COP 1. We aren't even positive if the biological transmutation of elements is even real, but I believe that it is. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:21 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Material strengths are measured in units of the physical dimension pressure. All evolution would have to do is concentrate nano-scale materials of the right strength and composition. That seems plausible as, for example, magnetite crystals have been found widely in organismshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetite#Biological_occurrences -- and the selective pressure has apparently been to fulfill a very peculiar need to detect electromagnetic fields in those organisms. Energy is hardly peculiar as a need for organisms so it should have been that much more attractive to find metabolic paths that produced proper nanocrystals for NAEs. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It may be a matter of pressure. I would look at the bugs near thermal heat vents at the bottom of the ocean or deep underground when the temperature exceeds boiling for adaptation to LENR. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms runs counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not saying most thought about LENR energy is right, you understand -- I'm just saying that if we explain away this miracle by that means, we should certainly question such claims of harmlessness of LENR radiation. LENR produces radiation. This is the only way the energy can be dissipated. The only unknown is the energy of the radiation and, therefore, how much can escape from the apparatus to be detected. Many measurements have detected a small fraction of the radiation, so we know it exists. We know that radiation is harmful to life, depending on its energy, because it disrupts the DNA. The facts are in place to provide an explanation. The only question is whether the facts will be used. As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments) then we have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous evolutionary cost to such radiation hardening that kept it from spreading throughout life? Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that cost barrier to get the benefit of the BNAE? Good question. Obviously that barrier is not easy to cross. Nevertheless, many organisms are known to be immune to radiation. I offered the cockroach as a well-know example. Perhaps experience with LENR will now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear products, which is not presently done. Ed On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
So if I understand your argument correctly, even though the detected energy flux of high energy photons/particles has been minuscule compared to the total energy measured from LENR experiments, it is still enough to account for substantial biological disruption at the scales of metabolic energy necessary for life. As you say, it will be interesting to see the arithmetic for this laid out more precisely when LENR research is widely funded. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms runs counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not saying most thought about LENR energy is right, you understand -- I'm just saying that if we explain away this miracle by that means, we should certainly question such claims of harmlessness of LENR radiation. LENR produces radiation. This is the only way the energy can be dissipated. The only unknown is the energy of the radiation and, therefore, how much can escape from the apparatus to be detected. Many measurements have detected a small fraction of the radiation, so we know it exists. We know that radiation is harmful to life, depending on its energy, because it disrupts the DNA. The facts are in place to provide an explanation. The only question is whether the facts will be used. As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments) then we have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous evolutionary cost to such radiation hardening that kept it from spreading throughout life? Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that cost barrier to get the benefit of the BNAE? Good question. Obviously that barrier is not easy to cross. Nevertheless, many organisms are known to be immune to radiation. I offered the cockroach as a well-know example. Perhaps experience with LENR will now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear products, which is not presently done. Ed On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 9 Jun 2013 19:04:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] A better reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906144558.htm This appears to refer to bacteria chemically processing the waste, not actual remediation of the radioactive content. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
I'm saying that the process of energy release requires many quanta, each with a small energy, to be released during the fusion process. These photons have too little energy for many to leave the apparatus. Heat is generated as they are absorbed by the material. This condition is basic to the CF effect. Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:34 PM, James Bowery wrote: So if I understand your argument correctly, even though the detected energy flux of high energy photons/particles has been minuscule compared to the total energy measured from LENR experiments, it is still enough to account for substantial biological disruption at the scales of metabolic energy necessary for life. As you say, it will be interesting to see the arithmetic for this laid out more precisely when LENR research is widely funded. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: The idea that emitted radiation from LENR is harmful to organisms runs counter to most thought about LENR energy release. I'm not saying most thought about LENR energy is right, you understand -- I'm just saying that if we explain away this miracle by that means, we should certainly question such claims of harmlessness of LENR radiation. LENR produces radiation. This is the only way the energy can be dissipated. The only unknown is the energy of the radiation and, therefore, how much can escape from the apparatus to be detected. Many measurements have detected a small fraction of the radiation, so we know it exists. We know that radiation is harmful to life, depending on its energy, because it disrupts the DNA. The facts are in place to provide an explanation. The only question is whether the facts will be used. As for cockroaches -- if we find they evolved radiation hardening in response to use of BNAEs (biological nuclear active environments) then we have to ask the obvious question: What is the enormous evolutionary cost to such radiation hardening that kept it from spreading throughout life? Moreover, how did cockroaches cross that cost barrier to get the benefit of the BNAE? Good question. Obviously that barrier is not easy to cross. Nevertheless, many organisms are known to be immune to radiation. I offered the cockroach as a well-know example. Perhaps experience with LENR will now give permission to test such life forms for nuclear products, which is not presently done. Ed On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The LENR energy source has a down side. It is not a source of free energy to a biological system. The emitted radiation would be obviously harmful. Consequently, the source would be only employed when this is the only way to avoid death. Fortunately, evolution has found better ways to get energy. Nevertheless, the energy source of all life-forms has not been identified. I can imagine that some single-cell organisms use fusion and transmutation as sources of energy, but these are rare and generally occupy environments inaccessible to biologists where the easy sources of energy are not available. In addition, what biologist would suggest that bacteria appear to be causing a nuclear reaction without being able to show very strong evidence, which is obviously not easy to get? You can now see the reaction to this idea even in the face of strong evidence that the effect is real. You might ask why cockroaches are very immune to radiation? Why did evolution give this protection unless they had to be defended from radiation. Has anyone measured the exact energy source used by a cockroach? Ed On Jun 9, 2013, at 4:15 PM, James Bowery wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
Re: [Vo]:Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It
It may have been that LENR is too complex for biology to have taken advantage of it. Also it may have caused DNA damage too difficult to overcome for biological systems. Either way, the fact that it is not widespread is accepted, but arguing from that fact that biological systems should be one way or another is an invalid classic fallacy, the argument from silence. On 6/9/13, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The subject say it all, really: 'Yet Another LENR Miracle: Evolution Didn't Find It' If an energy source as abundant and ubiquitous as LENR appears to be exists, why wouldn't evolution have found ways of creating the NAE (nuclear active environment)? If you say It did. then you have to explain why the manifest evolutionary advantages of such an energy source didn't cause it to become wide-spread enough to have baffled biochemists in the course of their analysis of metabolism.
