Wow! A total of TWENTY events! Implosion velocity within 5% of
ignition.
*AT* 5% of ignition
Wow! A total of TWENTY events! Implosion velocity within
5% of ignition.
*AT* 5% of ignition
In should concentrate more. It was WITHIN not AT
Greetings Vortex,
http://google.com
and their very interactive webpage is great fun to navigate.
By clicking your cursor you should get: a Lasso as well as
a radioactive gas can ( Aliens are pre-LENR).
A fun way to waste a few minutes on a Monday Morning.
Ron Kita, Chiralex
Doylestown PA
One solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=9iU4NHAeRWE
But there are more than the single solution.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings Vortex,
http://google.com
and their very interactive webpage is great fun to
Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references
in my library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion,
depending on the conditions and applied energy. Low energy favors cold
fusion if the NAE
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, ion bombardment has a rich literature containing 90 references in my
library. You need to read this before speculation is useful. Ion
bombardment can produce either hot fusion and/or cold fusion, depending on
the conditions and applied energy.
Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is
signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters
Thanks Terry: Note: Alien drinks Radioactive fuel then pee-s on vine.
then vine GROWS.
Sounds technically correct.
Grins,
Ron
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
One solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=9iU4NHAeRWE
But
Video of the grasshopper rising to altitude and descending again to the
launch pad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=eGimzB5QM1M
Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be
accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant.
1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and
Scientific American.
2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding
enough
I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an
interesting question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?
I personally believe nanoparticles alone are inert. However,
particles of a critical size are the HOST for the NAE. In other words,
the nano-gap I propose to be the NAE grows in a
*How to build a nano-cavity*
http://nanophotonics.csic.es/static/publications/pdfs/paper203.pdf
Organized Plasmonic Clusters with High Coordination Number and
Extraordinary Enhancement in Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS)
To illustrate a pivotal principle from Nano-engineering that bears
Here is more...
Fano resonance between nano-particles produce whispering gallery waves
between nano-particles. This was discovered only three years ago. The
Nanoplasmonic research community has not optimized the formation of Fano
resonance to any degree yet. They have only gotten it up to 10^^15
Maybe we could add
4- Reputable/rational organization use LENR practically.
but probably all will happen in a matter of month, with 1 being the last.
I think also about a 3bis : China launching a great LENR investment...
maybe they won't phase out anything, just be control the technology, and
Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't see that
in doubt at all.
What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly high
(and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold fusion / LENR.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edmund Storms
The journal reviewers to not accept the concept. The DOE does not
accept the concept. Most physicists do not accept the concept. As for
Rossi, his claims are totally consistent with how such an energy
source will behave based on simple engineering analysis. He could not
make up behavior
From: Ron Kita
( Aliens are pre-LENR).
A fun way to waste a few minutes on a Monday Morning.
Indeed it is. Here is something else to throw into the idea-blender for a
jolly old Roswell Day + 66 tribute (which is six solar cycles, if that means
anything to you). Executive summary: they
From Coldfusionnow.org --
NAVY LENR Patent Granted Transmutes Radioactive Waste
http://coldfusionnow.org/navy-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-radioactive-waste/
EXCERPT:
Examples of the types of particles generated and detected may include,
but are not limited to: alpha particles, beta
Ed,
I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider the gap
between nanoparticles as capable of supporting NAE. The geometry is essentially
the inverse of a skeletal catalyst- I am more likely to believe the particles
are inert and solid - only the geometry formed
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't see that
in doubt at all.
I agree with Ed. Very very people accept any form of cold fusion. Most
scientists and decision makers know nothing at all about cold fusion. Most
of them
Now that's what I'm talkin' about. That's the way rockets *are supposed* to
take off and land. Like in the SciFi classics of the 50's.
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly high
(and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold fusion / LENR.
In what sense is the COP absurdly high? Many devices have no input at
all, with an infinite COP.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
There is no good forensic evidence for physical visitation but there should
be, if it were true. Heck, we can even tell what Otzi the ice-man had for
his last meal 5,300 years ago but not a single bit of alien DNA has turned
The one advantage that knowledge gained from nanoplasmonics offers is
that such knowledge can be trusted as experimentally validated.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
wrote:
Ed,
I don’t understand why you are so reluctant to
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Ed. Very very people accept any form of cold fusion. Most
scientists and decision makers know nothing at all about cold fusion.
I disagree. I work with a large number of professionals and everyone
around
Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and
generally too big to achieve what I think is required. In addition, CF
occurs in the absence of nano-particles. Therefore, their presence is
not required. We agree that a gap is required. The only difference is
in how the
Dear Mr. Beene, et.al.:
The 'knowledge filter' which has polluted the scientific process has been
around since the beginning of that process. after all, we are only 'human'.
There is extensive evidence in the field of archaeology, some of which being
described in the book, Forbidden
*“generally too big to achieve what I think is required”*
This is a false assumption not supported by experimental observation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opTbxZwUisg
Because of electrostatic surface forces inherent in all types of
nanoparticles, nanoparticle attracts each other. When
I believe that what is being produced on the surface of material are not
ultra-cold neutrons but quasiparticles called skyrmions.
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I'm glad to see a paper by Mizuno. But this paper raises an interesting
question, Are nanoparticles the NAE?
I am sure they are the location of the NAE. The effect does not happen
without the particles.
I personally believe nanoparticles alone
Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
point of contract is topologically identical to a crack on the surface of a
material.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK58AnokWl4
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
*“generally too big to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiEEfUXcRvAlist=PLA93BDCCCAE8FC3F2
Formation of a NAE through electromigration.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a movie of two nanoparticles touching. Notice the space above the
point of contract is topologically
Axil, I know you are incapable of discussing or even believing what I
suggest, but I see no indication in the movie you provided that the
contact between particles is topologically identical to a crack on
the surface of a material. Have you ever seen a crack, examined
surfaces, or even
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0876.pdf
*Plasmons in nearly touching metallic nanoparticles: singular response in
the limit of touching dimers*
* *
The response of gold nanoparticle dimers is studied theoretically
near and beyond the limit where the particles are touching. As
If you doubt that skeptics still dominate mass media discussions of cold
fusion, see the comment section following this article about global
warming. See the comment I posted, and the responses to it:
From: Terry Blanton
http://www.starchildproject.com/
Terry - This is not very convincing to me, even if it were not an
Anniversary occasion - simply because it still assumes too much - including
for starters that good old DNA is the only (or even the best) way to code
for life. In
Ed,
Please consider Axil's movie from a 3d bulk perspective..
which is where I believe his argument was headed, the single point of
contact becomes multipoint to many particles all self attracting into a
bulk form. essentially a rigid if not solid conductor with open voids.. I do
Jed
In the comments you wrote: Also the effects are not weak. Heat has been
detected at 100 W with no input by Toyota and others, lasting up to 3 months
continuously, and tritium has been measured at 10E18 times background.
I've read at least one Toyota LENR paper, but can't recall the
Charles Francis fran...@datacomm.ch wrote:
I’ve read at least one Toyota LENR paper, but can’t recall the power
measurements you quote. I’d appreciate a link if available.
I may have exaggerated but they'll never check! See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
I will talk
Of course, Fran, you are correct. But this is irrelevant in the real
world. When two nano-particles touch, they immediately fuse and start
to grow a bigger particle. This is a common and well understood
behavior. We are not free to ignore what actually happens in Nature.
Of course, pores
On 2013-07-08, at 3:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I may have exaggerated but they'll never check!
Face palm
*“pores can be trapped in the growing structure but these are generally
large and eventually disappear”*
Whenever a heat or electric pulse is periodically applied to reinvigorate a
LENR reaction in a cycle, one of its consequences is to disrupt this
aggregation of nanoparticles, to reform these
blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I may have exaggerated but they'll never check!
Face palm
Oh come now. I wasn't that inaccurate. Read the paper. The reaction lasted
158 days but most of the heat was over a 30-day period.
There is no point to explaining that kind of detail to people who
Ed wrote:
Fran, the gap between nano-particles is arbitrary, undefined, and generally
too big to achieve what I think is required.
and this.
I believe a gap formed by stress relief is more general in its formation
and has properties that I believe are important, that a gap between
arbitrary
Yeah, I agree, but Pye has spent a fortune trying to prove otherwise.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
- Reply message -
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:OT- Google.com and Roswell Day Anniversary---FUN
Date: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 5:52
With compliments to RenzoB for the corrections to Google Translate.
http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20130708/fusione-fredda-gravi-critiche-test-indipendenti-intervista-bo-hoistad.htm
There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the
now famous independent third
Mark, I'm not discussing what nanotech can achieve. I'm describing
what Nature achieves in the various conditions known to produce CF.
Later, once the NAE is properly identified, it will be made using
nanotech. Meanwhile, we need to identify what actually needs to be
made, not what someone
Thanks for posting this.
If Ericsson and Pomp are the best thing the skeptics can come up with, Levi
et al. are sitting pretty. It's over. This is like the evolution debate
between Huxley and Soapy Sam Wilberforce, or Fleischmann versus Morrison:
AI have oftentimes repeated, all experimental references come from
Nanoplasmonics and the references presented as fully supported by
experimentation.
The only unknown is the detailed mechanism of the nuclear transmutation
process.. And even in this, the speculated mechanism is based on the latest
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
Assuming the LENR claims are correct, does anyone know how much more
economical LENR approaches are at generating cold neutrons?
From the experiments I've seen so far in my reading, there are two typtes
of neutron emissions --
I regret to announce that John O'M Bockis died on July 7, 2013 after a
brief illness. He was hospitalized last week. He stayed alert and in good
spirits, and was able to say goodbye to his friends and relatives.
Here is a message from his assistant Trish Schulz:
Dr. B has has some impact on all
This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII
system: ö
The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this
message if you wish to comment on it.
- Jed
Oh No. not another true scientist.
Infuriating does not describe the feeling that many who risked their careers
will not be there to see this succeed and share in what they helped keep it
alive when the multitudes tried to 'pill the plug' prematurely.
-Mark Iverson
From: Jed
Ah, good to know.
Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors.
Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds
the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1
On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
This
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds
the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1
On WHAT basis?!? That's irrational. You do not have a scintilla of
technical evidence that the claims are
*On WHAT basis?!? That's irrational. You do not have a scintilla of
technical evidence that the claims are wrong. The skeptics have not come up
with a single reason to doubt these results.*
On the basis that I could arbitrage such a bet 10 ways to sunday. The
world markets have not priced in
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
On the basis that I could arbitrage such a bet 10 ways to sunday. The
world markets have not priced in something like the eCat on the horizon..
Perhaps I misunderstand. I don't know betting jargon. Are you saying that
if the thing does exist,
It means if it exists, I get paid $10 for every $1 I bet. The implied
probability is 1/(11) or ~9%. It it doesn't, I pay out 3 to 1 with an
implied probability of 25%
Usually people will average that spread out to get my real probability
(assuming I risk the same amounts).
That comes to
Ed:
You've analyzed all the LENR data way more than I, and I certainly hope you
are able to persuade some of the experimentalists to heed your advice on how
best to proceed. however, even if ALL future experiments heeded your
advice, I still think the repeatability and COP will not be much
*I think we can agree that there is a particular geometry or size which is
conducive to LENR; *
I hold hope that such a thing is possible and can be found. I point to the
polariton laser as a well conceived example of purpose build
nano-engineering.
If a long lived polariton laser can be
60 matches
Mail list logo
