On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
> Is it truly cold and is it truly fusion? Well, it's got to be nuclear in
> nature, but until we know what it *is* -- and we don't -- we can't rule
> anything out, not completely.
>
Abd, you bring up some excellent points. What I woul
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
All the Godes/BEC are required to do - in order to silence the skeptics (and
> at the same time receive all the funding they can ever use) is to
> demonstrate conclusively the appearance of Helium in the ash.
>
Helium ash is a well-known result
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM, wrote:
>
> It did not move like an aircraft. It meandered around at a low velocity
> for about one minute. Then it got dimmer and cycled off and on on random
> intervals of about two second intervals.. An aircraft would have to be
> traveling in circules to do
2012/5/2
> >4H -> 4He + 2e+ + 2anti-v +Energy
>
>
> This should be 4H -> 4He + e- + anti-v + Energy.
> (4H is one proton and three neutrons).
>
Oops, right, thanks for correction
it is more simple.
>
> Note the "silliness" of this situation: First the proton acquires an
> electron,
> at great
This reminds me of something I saw a few years ago. I was driving down a
mountain road when I noticed a round ball which appeared to be floating through
the nearby trees on the passenger side of the car. It attracted my attention
because it was red in color and sparkled much like a red laser
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM, wrote:
So - if the results are correct, maybe we should expect neutrons are
falling into shallow nuclear potential wells, forming short-lived
> isotopes?
>
This is what I'm hoping for. In my mind it connects together so many
pieces of the puzzle very nicely --
I did not say it was a UFO. It looked more like a hot coal in the sky. This
hot coal was taking a random walk. No high velocity motions or high
accelerations were observed. It did not blink out, it dimmed out like an
automotive dome light. When it came back on it was of another brightness.
In reply to Alain Sepeda's message of Tue, 1 May 2012 16:20:36 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>in fact they forgot to tell that the neutron is p^roduced the same
>
>so
>p+e+energy->n +v
>n+1H->2H+energy
>p+e+energy-> n +v
>n+2H->3H+energy
>p+e+energy-> n +v
>n+3H->4H+energy
>
>4H -> 4He + 2e+ + 2anti-v +Ener
Contact John Ventre:
http://mufonpa.com/wp1/?page_id=583
T (former MUFON representative)
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:29 PM, wrote:
> I saw something strange in the sky tonight over Johnstown PA. It was a
> light several times brighter than Venus. It was far away and appered just a
> little bigg
Jones,
I realize that I did not make clear in my earlier reply, that I am not
advocating in any way for sonofusion.
What I am looking for is any reasonable case in which LENR (likely) occurs
without large local current flow on a metal surface. Some of the
sonofusion papers suggest they inject a
Sailors at see learn quickly that you cannot tell at night what the distance is
to a solitary lightor, therefore, how bright it might be.
On May 1, 2012, at 9:29 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
> I saw something strange in the sky tonight over Johnstown PA. It was a light
> several times br
Not at 70 degrees up and very bright brighter than the dim solar powered road
sign
---Original Message-
From: mixent
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 1, 2012 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What was that?
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 1 May 2012 21:29:26 -0400
(EDT):
Hi Frank,
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 1 May 2012 21:29:26 -0400
(EDT):
Hi Frank,
[snip]
Could it have been an inversion layer reflection of the road sign? Eventually
disappearing when the inversion layer dissipated (or broke up)?
>
>I saw something strange in the sky tonight over John
I saw something strange in the sky tonight over Johnstown PA. It was a light
several times brighter than Venus. It was far away and appered just a little
bigger than point like. The diameter was bigger than a star. It was at an
angle of 70 degrees up in the sky south of Johnstonwn PA USA.
---
Science magazine news report: "Textbook electrodynamics may contradict
relativity"
"Heated debate" foreseen on paper in press at Physical Review Letters.
http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/science_and_the_media/em_science_em_magazine_news_report_textbook_electrodynamics_may_con
I responded, "anonymously," but it should be pretty obvious it was me
I've been harping on the same theme for months now.
At this point, we need more science and pure scientific investigation
(controlled experiment), and, arguably, less attempt to scale up and
"make it more reliable." Col
/Rejoice,
Schrödinger's cat is alive and Chan has new thoughts: http://chan.host-ed.me
/
Speaking of great quotes:
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when
successful, finds none.
Thomas Kuhn
T
Another great quote from von Neumann:
". . . anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
is, of course, in a state of sin."
- John von Neumann, “Various Techniques Used in Connection with Random
Digits,” in A. S. Householder, ed., Monte Carlo Method, Proceedings of a
Symp
No doubt the hemline took two vectors to a scalar, which is linear in the
second vector, and which is such that reversing the vectors is complex
conjugation.
From: Jed Rothwell
G. Dyson writes in Turing's Cathedral that during the oral examination: ". .
. David Hilbert was reported to h
Von Neumann published his first major paper at age 17, and then attended
two universities at the same time, in Zurich and Budapest. The latter he
attended for a week at the end of each term, to take the examinations. It
seems almost as an afterthought that he got a PhD at age 23.
G. Dyson writes i
Axil,
I do not think that it is 'delusional', but that he is onto something which I
tend to term 'dangerous' nuclear reaction.
In some sense it is 'low energy', albeit those cavitation processes are
probably more like hot fusion.
But this is unclear.
'Delusional' it would be, if the effect w
*Most of LeClair's spiel is delusional.*
So true…
LeClair is not thinking straight. Because his process produces neutrons,
LeClair wants to develop a hot fusion reactor from his process. This Idea
is crazy. Neutron production must be avoided at all costs in LENR.
Neutron production means dealin
Lou,
This company has been the unquestioned leader in the sonofusion field for
the past 13 years.
http://www.impulsedevices.com/
Unlike Nanospire and Stringham, they have a top notch lab, PhDs, patents,
real results, peer reviewed publications - and manufactured and sold a
working prototype reac
Thanks Eric,
So - if the results are correct, maybe we should expect neutrons are
falling into shallow nuclear potential wells, forming short-lived
isotopes?
I have no idea how credible the reported results are. It would be
interesting to know how confident Miley is on the transmutation reports.
Thanks, Jones,
I agree all claims need to be viewed with skepticism until there is
independent replication by competent, financially disinterested
scientists.
Possibly, most, or even all, results are due to measurement errors or
misreporting - I really don't know. If Nanospire's or Stringham's c
...Sometimes reality is so strong that it can even change
imagination. ...
well said, my friend.
Guenter
Von: Peter Gluck
An: CMNS ; VORTEX
Gesendet: 16:45 Dienstag, 1.Mai 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
My dear friends,
I have sinned again, this tim
This is a mild version of Kurzweilian transhumanist singularitarianism.
En par:
When will war be completely be artificialized?
When will Americans have affordable healthcare?
When is the end of science?
When will cockroaches dominate the earth?
It's all about in 20 years time.
I stick to Doug A
Before long, the New York Times will be but a room of servers. The editors will
be relegated to choosing computer-generated stories from those "most
recommended" for their target demographic. At least they'll have fewer typos.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/can-an-algorithm-write-a-be
Bottom line:
All the Godes/BEC are required to do - in order to silence the skeptics (and
at the same time receive all the funding they can ever use) is to
demonstrate conclusively the appearance of Helium in the ash.
Due to the lower cost of helium leak analyzers (compared to full featured
spec
in fact they forgot to tell that the neutron is p^roduced the same
so
p+e+energy->n +v
n+1H->2H+energy
p+e+energy-> n +v
n+2H->3H+energy
p+e+energy-> n +v
n+3H->4H+energy
4H -> 4He + 2e+ + 2anti-v +Energy
(this one is not classic, does somemone have reference on 4H disintegration
branching).
on
Jones,
Did You mean the Sharon Astyk/ Tom Whipple posts?
I commented on Tom Whipple's blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2012/04/will_quantum_fusion_save_the_d.php
The interesting aspect is, that two fringe-'realists' somehow seem to clash, or
engage in a fruitful debate, as I hope.
I.
-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
> Nanospire report that the isotopes generated are short-lived.
Assuming their measurements are accurate, why should this be?
It can't be true.
Lou, to be generous - most interested observers who have looked into these
claims, consider L
From: Ron Kita
Ah..here is the closest find. A link to a blog called:
Quantum Fusion..a nice term:
The blog link is 80% down the page on the right side:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.html
Greetings All,
Weekly I look at the on-line New York Times-Science Times section for some
mention of LENR-CF.
Ah..here is the closest find. A link to a blog called: Quantum
Fusion..a nice term:
The blog link is 80% down the page on the right side:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.ht
35 matches
Mail list logo
