Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions from the floor

Re: [Vo]:Blue moon

> > > Hmm... evidence of cold fusion on Europa ? > Now you're getting desperate. What is it..? lanthanide contraction, plasma cavities inside metals, aneutronic fusion with some weird multibody effect to explain lake of gamma rays and neutrons, waxing lyrical about QCD, ad-hoc this ad-hoc that.

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

It will make a brilliant centre peice for a museum looking at all the attempts, both successful and unsucessful, to find alternative energy sources. I guess the problem is that we dont yet know which of the two sections of the museum which should put this (and many other current projects) into

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Mr. Franks. You retreated from the last thread you started where you stated similar nonsense. You didn't even understand the trivial issues surrounding recombination. Please stop making us expose your ignorance and pseudoscientific critique, its a waste of everyone's time. Regards. On Tue, Dec 1

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

;-) maybe that is trolling? or is it sincere and full delusion? I don't take video as evidence. Neither Nature or Science editor as evidence. Nor opinion from people who did not look at the subject, which include all critics except a handful of people like Huizenga and Cudes. I take a network of

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

> > > ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid > In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neu

[Vo]:New Advisor John Podesta

May be this is good for the future of LENR too? http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/16/the-center-for-american-progress-is-funded-by-big-corporations-and-lobbyists/ http://www.americanprogressaction.org/about/our-supporters/ John Podesta also advocates for disclosure, as far as I know.

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Truly bizarre, and I could care less as to its usefulness. > ". . . could *not* care less . . ."

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:00 AM, John Franks wrote: > It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's > inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% > repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper > conferences, attended by

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree that it is in violation of good ethics as it pertains to the forum rules and should be addressed by a moderator. If he raised genuine questions/concerns and was less blindly antagonistic it would be less of an issue. On Tue,

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

the good news is that it is not specific to the question whether Science/Nature have stated more or less officially that they will not publish anything around cold fusion. 2013/12/17 Foks0904 . > Personally I don't mind Mr. Franks making a fool of himself, but I agree > that it is in violation

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. So I do "care" in that respect. My point is it is novel and inspired enough to be interesting and worth paying attention to no matter what. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Foks0904 . wro

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

*In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branc

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

>>>Axil Axil: IBM has just demonstrated Bose-Einstein condensation at room temperature. So what has that got to do with cold fusion? http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/42710.wss >>> Foks0904 : Personal

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

>>> Foks0904 : Obviously I hope it performs as advertised. What has hope got to do with science? Do you believe in mind matter effects and magical thinking? Nature (excuse the pun) just does what it bloody well wants to. CF *is* like RAR where grown ups keep telling them to read the proper litera

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and scienc

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

What has hope got to do with science? Your assertion below is incorrect. We know that physical diseases have a biochemical basis, so we are correct to apply the scientific method and *suspect* that greater knowledge and/or a cure will result. This is why people fund the science of cancer research.

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Axil, Dr. Franks is merely pointing out the obvious: IBM has succumbed to "Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions." Always your fellow "true believer", -- Jim On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > *In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Hi, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:00 AM, John Franks wrote: It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's > inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% > repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper > conferences, attended

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Deliberately misquoting or passing off material as what someone said has got to be against forum rules. I ask again, what does the IBM BEC work regarding low dimensional structures, leptons and low energy have to do with CF and hadrons? Can anybody answer these questions, like my others (What is F

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

* It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it.* What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. W

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom? And, no you didn't. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Mr. Franks, > > BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for > condensate clusters in hydride lattices. > > I answered your question on Faraday efficienc

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

Mr. Franks, BEC has to do with Yeong Kim and Akito Takahashi's theoretical claims for condensate clusters in hydride lattices. I answered your question on Faraday efficiency. You don't read carefully. Regards. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Franks wrote: > Deliberately misquoting or

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

> > > What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat > data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the > peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the > test of time. > Wow! Was it you claiming one group had 100% repeatabil

[Vo]:unsubscribe

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

*Oh yeah? Peer reviewed? Cited by whom?* What are you talking about? Theory? Kim's BEC paper was published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer reviewed journal *gasp*: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-009-0537-6#page-1 And yes I did answer your question in your orphaned thread. FE has n

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

Please don't unsubscribe Mr. Franks. Your tact is unparalleled and would surely be missed. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Franks wrote: > >> What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat >> data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusion Technology: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAcalorimetr.pdf Morrison-Fleischman debate about Fleischman's published calorimetry in Physics Letters: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanrep

Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing

To get back on topic, I think the primary function of guys like John Cranks has to do with a profound human tragedy: The evolution of human eusociality. Let me explain: It is obvious to those with anything approaching critical thinking, that guys like John Cranks (with which the history of CF is

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

This image shows the RAR Energia device moving at its maximum rotational velocity: http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem51a.JPG (I'm not sneering, I'm snarking!) - Brad On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: > > Orian

Re: [Vo]:New Advisor John Podesta

This clearly shows why the U.S. is a plutocracy. But more disclosure would be good - even if it will be ignored by Establishment Media. Kader wrote: > May be this is good for the future of LENR too? > > > http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/16/the-center-for-american-progress-is-funded-by-

[Vo]:What the Japanese Government Isn’t Saying About F**ushima

(Video) What the Japanese Government Isn’t Saying About Fukushima http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/japanese-government-isnt-saying-fukushima Is this a concern for investors in Japanese stocks? -- LP

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

James, Yes it is. It was then published in Fusion Technology, which I believe George Miley was editing at the time. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of > "Nature" rejected, despite it passing peer Nature'

Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Nickel-62 is an isotope of nickel having 28 protons and 34 neutrons. > >It is a stable isotope, with the highest binding energy per nucleon of any >known nuclide (8.7945 MeV). > > It is often stated that 56Fe is the "m

Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea

Here is more on this topic from the Washington Post. Officials from the U.S. Department of Blatantly Obvious interviewed Kim Junk Un's former classmates in Switzerland and reported: "We went to great pains to interview almost everyone – classmates, others – to try to get a sense of what his charac

Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the following: Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some of it is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still lik

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

You've cracked the case Franks. Well done. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM, John Franks wrote: > That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is > all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look > where it was published and the readership. Hardly

[Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's all BIOLOGY!!! Volume 96, Issue 7, July 2009 ISSN: 0028-1042 (Print) 1432-19

Re: [Vo]:possible explanation with illustrations

Eric, et al, The momentum/energy kick exerted on a charged particle can be calculated using the formula provided by Feynman (vol. 3, equation (21.16)), or by Barbieri, et al (p.6, equation (27)) - It is the time integral of the induced electric field E = -dA/dt = the time derivative of the

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not high enough), that there needs to be some modification to the tail-off of the statistics too and that the crossing of grain boundaries relieves the d

Re: [Vo]: RAR energia update

Is that Oriani paper the draft that Oriani testifies the US editors of "Nature" rejected, despite it passing peer Nature's own peer review? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Well Mr. Franks bailed preemptively. For anyone else whose interested: > > Oriani, Excess Heat, Fusio

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

*SO WHO WAS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE IN THIS BIOLOGY JOURNAL!!! * Can you stop yelling? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Franks wrote: > Quickly scanning it (I'm reading it on a small screen on a sea ferry), the > premise is that the deuterons don't obey MB statistics (wrong, density not > h

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

NO! I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy, has a STI and the nurse at the clinic just shouted it out to the whole waiting room. Use protection when doing science or you'll be ill-conceived, unplanned or oozing

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I already conceded defeat Franks. *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20+ years, your ecstasy and joy...* Yes. Exactly. Eloquent stuff. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, John Franks wrote: > NO! > > I know you embarrassment is palpable now - it's like the your love of your > li

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 years. UNSUBSCRIBING. In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I already conceded defeat Franks. > > *it's like the your love of your life, the the past 20

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

OK. See you Mr. Franks. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:23 PM, John Franks wrote: > I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 > years. > > UNSUBSCRIBING. > > In another 20, you'll all be dead or (more) gaga. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

John Franks wrote: I'll get my coat. Nothing to see here. Nothing has happened in the past 20 > years. > > UNSUBSCRIBING. > No, you are not unsubscribing. You may think you are headed out the front door, but you keep putting on your coat and then walking into hallway closet and slamming the door

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a preschool education knows that, room-temperature BECs are impossible? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, John Franks wrote: > Quickly scanning it (I'm r

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM, John Franks wrote: > That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is > all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take a look > where it was published and the readership. Hardly a critical audience, it's > all BIOLOGY!!! >

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Did Dr. Cranks ever get around to describing why it is we are to ignore > IBM's *empirical* result of room-temperature BECs when, as anyone with a > preschool education knows

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Well, I suppose being beaten by *the best* isn't too much of an embarrassment is it? Now's a good time to admit defeat and save face, for sure. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > James, > > Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we? > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Wait just a second, Dr. Cranks doesn't hold a candle to Dr. NATHAN LEWIS (Cal Tech) in his devastating conclusion to the fiasco of the century: "This experiment hasn’t been reproduced by any national laboratory or any university yet without a good football team." I'm afraid Dr. Cranks is _not_ "th

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Lewis is an embarrassment in a number of ways: A) Lewis' claim about improper stirring was a joke and created a huge smokescreen because he announced it flippantly and matter of factly at APS. B) I think it was a few months later, Fleischmann and Lewis were both at the same ACS (pretty sure) meet

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

The real weasel at CalTech is Goodstein -- basically realizing that CalTech had committed a crime against humanity and trying to write a historic placeholder they can point to to say "See! We didn't really deny it! It wasn't our fault!" On Tue, De

RE: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Well, the aptly-named one :-) certainly knows how to get a rise out of his patients, so to speak . From: Foks0904 James, Lets just admit we've been beaten by the best, shall we?

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. All these psuedoskeptics do is avoid the excess heat claim. Lets bash P-F neutron detection. Lets bash theory. Lets just assume the calorimetry was wrong, even th

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >I think Lewis, Garwin, etc. also came out of SRI convinced but had to save face no matter what. So, Garwin had his tea but choked on it. Lovely!

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

I really enjoyed Garwin's response during the 60-minutes piece when told that the Department of Defense study "left no doubt that excess heat was produced". About 10 minutes in Garwin (looking very uncomfortable): "...Well...that's a statement...I'm living proof that there is doubt...they can say

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but just > avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. > I rather like Goodstein's piece. The question facing him (whether he perceived it or not) was: do I wa

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

Eric, You're right about critiques of theory generally speaking. Those within the field who are most able (i.e. academic theoreticians) to critique theory are often silent about others work. Storms is not a physicist-theoretician by profession, but his comprehensive reviews and critiques (and his

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > Yeah Goodstein even commented how good the work of Scaramuzzi was, but >> just avoided the question of whether excess heat was real or not. >> > > I rather like Goodstein's piece. The qu

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

- Original Message - From: "John Franks" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:05:25 PM Subject: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper That "great" paper where the mechanism is revealed to the world and CF is all done and settled (barred getting anything that works), take

Re: [Vo]:[Vo] That BEC paper

As the Little River Band said, "Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out!" And perhaps in a few years we'll see if it was your theory dreamboat that ran onto the sand, or hundreds of respectible scientists simply looking into an anomaly, which is what science is supposed to be about.

Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.

There are many assertions in this post that may be misapplied. The polariton will form a BEC up to a temperature of 2300K. The generation of heat in Rossi's reactor is superfluidic. During the reactor meltdown event in the first impartial Rossi test, the picture of the meltdown showed that the en