http://localmattersdigital.com/pddwx/qqabaxx.onthmpdg
Jones,
Good Points, It brings up the question of how to differentiate between
transmutation and faux transmutation.. we may be knee deep in faux
transmutation all around us and unaware of how to detect the difference.. a
technology that could make one element look like the next element over by
Terry, I agree with your posit, I think this is also how Papp engine may work
forming the geometry with plasma layers and trapped gas between, or sonofusion
where the collapsing menisci forms the geometry but all these different
anomalies being a form of vacuum engineering as Puthoff coined it.
From: Eric Walker
… we've been going back and forth and throwing around some
of the ideas we think might explain what's going on in LENR and Rossi's
device. There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations,
but for the moment I'll
Lest we not forget ... A field was never a physical thing. Fields have
always been a mathematical artifice used to describe/visualize the action
at a distance supplied by charges - stationary and in motion.
According to Hotson, these actions at a distance are all transmitted by the
essentially
Well said. I love it when Hotson is quoted.
He was intuitive about bringing Dirac’s mathematics down to earth, that he must
have addressed the DDL – but a quick google turns up nothing specific.
From: Bob Higgins
Lest we not forget ... A field was never a physical thing. Fields
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Well said. I love it when Hotson is quoted.
Especially someone as knowledgeable as Professor Higgins!
Thanks,
If we can get it out of our heads that spacetime is nice and smooth around
us and realize that our Sun's real energy (quantum vacuum) can warp and
decay space along the solar winds, we will understand that we are just
Riders on the Quantum Storm
I wrote:
... There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations, but
for the moment I'll put them in four categories:
1. Explanations involving fusion of some kind without the catalysis of
stable shrunken hydrogen (a.k.a. f/H, hydrinos, DDL hydrogen, etc.). ...
I was
Another possibility is that the atom will accept muons at a orbital very
close to the nucleus, these orbitals are in the kilovolt energy range.
No electrons need to be displaced when muons are absorbed into an atom.
Mills has never considered the possibility that 10 mm emission line might
come
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/brightsource-solar-plant-sets-birds-on-fire-as-they-fly-overhead-1.2739512
Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a
name for birds that fly through the concentrated beams of solar energy
focused upward by the plant's 300,000 mirrors —
f/h and ddl may be a mistaken observation for muonionic atoms.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote:
... There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations, but
for the moment I'll put them in four categories:
1. Explanations
If the birds are dumb enough to fly thru a sunlight beam, then so be it.
What the heck are the birds doing in the desert anyways. That is not their
natural habitat.
If you believe in Darwinian Evolution, that's natural selection for you, so
you have no right to complain about it.
This
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-guidelines-solar-cells-surface-plasmon.html
(Phys.org) —Researchers from the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology (CNST) have established guidelines for using surface plasmon
polaritons (SPPs) to improve absorption in both photovoltaic or
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
f/h and ddl may be a mistaken observation for muonionic atoms.
I kind of like the idea of f/H being a misidentification of muonic atoms.
I would put that in category (1), because it's definitely not f/H, and it
results in
It doesn't count as a bird kill if they vaporize in the air and don't make
it to the ground.
Honestly, this is an f'd up system. With PV prices plummeting it makes no
sense to put in another albatross like this.
Feel proud, if you are in the US, you bought it.
Good movie prop, Sahara 2.
On
This type of system appears to be too dangerous to bird life. I can imagine a
nightmare scenario where a large flock of geese or ducks happen to divert their
normal travel path into one of these beams. Perhaps this technique should not
be deployed unless this issue is resolved. One would
The investors invested over 2.2 billion and you're going to shut it down for
some dumb birds (and some desert tortoise). Goodness, even if we take the
hyperbolic, ridiculous estimate of 28,000 bird kills/year - I say so what. I
can guarantee you, more than 28,000 birds/year die of natural
It wasn't free, it cost $2.2 billion and has high construction and
maintenance costs. It was primarily not investors that paid for it, it was
US taxpayers through a check from Uncle Sam that Financed it.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
The
It's ALREADY BUILT In a sense, what comes out of it is FREE. The 2.2
billion is already sunked down costs. That can't be recovered. The price has
already been PAID, and you want to shut it down for some dumb birds? Do you
have a better soluition for our energy needs?
So, since the
Maybe your sense. No it has not been paid back to the US tax payer.
Where did I say shut it down I said:
With PV prices plummeting it makes no sense to put in another albatross
like this.
I also said it will make good movie prop.
Stop making stuff up, like illuminati crap.
On Tue, Aug
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html
What is the issues with this line of thinking as a source of muons?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
Thank you Terry for posting this. I had no idea the problem was so bad.
I curse - and pity - the designers of this death ray at BurntSourceEnergy.
May their chicken be black out of the oven - and Thanksgiving dinner a
FAIL - for the rest of their existence.
Examples abound describing the
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3ABrightSource%22
Kevin O'Malley
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22
Mon,
24 Feb 2014 14:09:13 -0800
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:19:53 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
Actually no place in the Universe is completely free of fields.
Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
You've been reading CC.
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 18 Aug 2014 23:11:51 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
And, it is possible to create an opposite field to balance out that natural
one that is measured within a small location in space. This is done with
pairs of coils, etc.
Dave
There isn't just a
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Stop making stuff up, like illuminati crap.
It might be a fake religion; but, it is the world's greatest:
http://io9.com/the-greatest-fake-religion-of-all-time-1622095459
And the second greatest is:
Andrea Rossi:
*I had to stay 36 hours straight on a plant in critical operation to
control it, without sleeping, eating, just drinking water. Luckily God gave
me strong excess of stamina and I use it, if necessary, to the limit. In
September I am afraid this situation will be frequent, but with
Andrea Rossi:
*I had to stay 36 hours straight on a plant in critical operation to
control it, without sleeping, eating, just drinking water. Luckily God gave
me strong excess of stamina and I use it, if necessary, to the limit. In
September I am afraid this situation will be frequent, but with
McEk
August 19th, 2014 at 4:01 AM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=853cpage=11#comment-989012
Dear Adrea,
I am following your E-cat/ Hot cat developments now for 3 years and I have
read about all the little and big steps in progress you are making. I would
love to be one of your
At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric field
and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be balanced out
fairly easily. Changing fields such as those due to electromagnetic waves are
a different subject.
This is off the subject somewhat since I
Or it could be that he was referring to needing to be there to observe the
measurements and take over if anything went wrong. In that case, nothing
special would be associated with his remark.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l
Circular motion produces acceleration and requires energy to maintain.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
At any point in space a net vector exists for both the static electric
field and steady magnetic field. This is the vector set that can be
True, and that energy finds itself being radiated into open space.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Circular motion produces
I am referring the possible need to manually adjust the temperature of the
reactor to avoid meltdown.
He also says that the reactor is only suitable for industrial use as
required and maintained by a trained operator.
He also says that a home unit will require some sort of statistical control
Not necessarily. If the energy can be focused into a tight beam that
negates the inverse square law, energy pumped into a rotating particle
system can greatly amplify both the power carried by photons and the field
carried by virtual protons.
see
*Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid
Has Mills ever proved that the experimental observations he has used to
support factional orbital states are due to electrons? This states may be
the result of muon capture by atoms.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Eric Hermanson e...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Thu Aug 14, 2014, Beene, Jones
Yes, in Volume I:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/
On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Has Mills ever proved that the experimental observations he has used to
support factional orbital states are due to electrons? This states may be the
result
Can you be kind enough to site the relevant passage by extracting that
material here in the reply to this email?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Eric Hermanson e...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Yes, in Volume I:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/
On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Axil
Hydrino transitions regard resonant energy transfers that depend on multiples
of the potential energy of Hydrogen, 27.2 eV (one Hartree), where the potential
energy of Hydrogen is due to the proton and its bound electron alone. See
Chapter 5, specifically. The Introduction is also a good
It's due to not understanding how the reactor actually works.
That theoretical explanation is what it may look like, but it is near
impossible to tell what is happening in subatomic particles. CERN has
spent billions of dollars to find out what subatomic particles are doing in
detail. As a result, Many early theories of particle physics have been
incorrect
That is what I think too.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's due to not understanding how the reactor actually works.
Axil, I don’t believe your question is valid. What Mills has done is derive a
set of equations based on electronic transitions that have nothing to do with
muons, or even coupling to muons. The question you ask is no better than, “has
Mills accounted for ‘grapes' causing fractional orbital
I think Rossi should monitor the magnetic field around his reactor and
use its intensity for feedback in lieu of temperature.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I think too.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
He did not say directly that he had to manually control the temperature, and
that would be a major problem if needed. How do you suppose the scientists
performing the long term test would respond if this type of direct control was
required? It is far more likely that he was there just in
But Axil, we are talking of open space here. There is no metal nearby for the
solitons to form upon. Also, be careful when you use the word amplify since
this type of system is not over unity as far as total energy is concerned.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
You can control a system without knowing exactly how it functions. Granted, it
would be easier if you had a perfect handle upon it, but that is not required
provided you know how it behaves to control stimuli. Of course, I am assuming
it is possible to control the animal in some manner.
Dave
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
You can control a system without knowing exactly how it functions.
Simple systems, maybe. However, complex systems might not be so
simple to predict. Ask the operators at Chernobyl.
I wouldn't assume they have no automation, but maybe in their lab
experiments they do not. Regardless, it should not be terribly difficult
to build a control system. I presume he follows some kind of internal
rules and reacts based on the rules. If he can do it manually, it could be
I can see that you and jojo are gonna be fast friends... assuming that you
aren't already his famous pen pal. It's good to see someone with a
classic physics background on the board. But how is the Grand Unified
Theory a novel theory in physics?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/hermansoneric
On
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
He also says that a home unit will require some sort of statistical control
approach. Developing these statistics has not been developed yet.
He still has control problems.
If we now have self-driving cars, I do not think
If you remember, the Rossi reactor did melt down at the beginning of the
first test. Maybe that was do to improper training of the testers.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
He did not say directly that he had to manually control the temperature,
and
I speculate that the Ni/H reactor produces massive amounts of RF. I may be
that sensors cannot operate inside the reactor.
Furthermore, this may be an opinion not held by many, but I believe that
DGT has solved the control problem. This is a fallout of how the two
different energy pumping methods
DGT revealed that even with a double Fariday shield, the reactor took out
the phone system in the building that there test was held in.
It is the same for the Rossi reactor. All the tests that Rossi ran before
the sale of his IP is suspect as flawed, IMHO.
The Ni/H reactor must be shielded and
There are nanoparticles distributed throughout the universe, even is the
bleakest areas of space. Nanoparticles will support anapole magnetic
formation.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:04 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
But Axil, we are talking of open space here. There is no metal
There are many possible mechanisms that might produce the raw experimental
data that Mills uses as a basis for his theory. As a scientist, Mills needs
to exclude all the other possible causes for his data before he assumes
that his data is caused by factional electron orbits, especially since his
I'm speechless...
I was mostly thinking that using JoJo's argument, fossil fuels are also
free since they are already there in the ground to use and we can ignore
operating and maintenance expenses.
I was mostly concerned about the costs to recharge/refurbish Jed's android
robots that wash the
Looong time ago, I builttest equipment, employedby AAB. I never saw or
heard of any thing not possible to measure or control. Sometimes it took
time tofind out the hooks and occasionally one picked wrong but it ws
correctable . I assume that is still true. (Semiconductors)
On Aug 19, 2014 5:58 PM,
OK Chem I understand the reaction. I think you are extended the argument a
bit. We (the taxpayers) actually built the solar farm. The oil is way
different - I knowp we did not build the resourse. Well, I guess you will
say we did not build the sun either. You are right but the fractionwe
harvest
This thing you say is true. But when the cornerstone that you have built
your system on is not compatible with control, the system designer must
discard that cornerstone and replace it with something else that works 100
% of the time.
Being the first Ni/H system that was designed, Rossi's system
I like trains!
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:
OK Chem I understand the reaction. I think you are extended the argument a
bit. We (the taxpayers) actually built the solar farm. The oil is way
different - I knowp we did not build the resourse. Well, I
Windmills kill many birds also. Dams kill many fish. Green energy kills
things.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com
wrote:
OK Chem I understand the reaction. I think you are extended the argument a
bit. We (the taxpayers) actually built the solar farm. The
Stewie,
If you insist on using this argument, then no intelligent dialogue can be had
on this issue. I am not even going to waste my time dignifiying your response.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: ChemE Stewart
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html
What is the issues with this line of thinking as a source of muons?
I am out of my element in this topic, but I will offer some feedback
He actually took part in projects to build solar power plants.
2014-08-20 0:48 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
Stewie,
If you insist on using this argument, then no intelligent dialogue can be
had on this issue. I am not even going to waste my time dignifiying
your
http://www.csp-world.com/cspworldmap/coalinga
On Tuesday, August 19, 2014, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
He actually took part in projects to build solar power plants.
2014-08-20 0:48 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
Lately your main contribution to this forum is to bring in religious side
issues that distort the discussion, and to post to others that you won't
post to them any more.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Stewie,
If you insist on using this
Repeated many times in previous posts and except in part here as follows:
I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons
actually SPPs on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic
mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds.
It
Actually, statistical control is a reasonably strong approach. I take
ethernet as an example.
10/100 Mbit ethernet was once dominated by National Semiconductor, heavily
relying on their analog background to control tightly the parameters
involved. They were overtaken by a disruptive technology
My wave farms are totally renewable and won't kill things. It can barely be
seen from the beach and it is safe for swimmers and to a certain extent safe
for slow boaters.
I wonder what these hyper-environmentalist would object to against my wave
pumps?
Jojo
- Original Message -
Axil:
I enjoy seeing that reference and don't mind seeing it pointed out multiple
times. But I do not understand how it counteracts what Eric says about
muons. Can you please connect the dots?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Repeated many times in
The SPP's not only focus magnetic photons, it also focuses virtual photons.
Virtual photons create the magnetic field that define the rate of nuclear
decay. Usually, the vacuum produces a fixed average rate of virtual photon
production. So the rate of radioactive decay is stable.
When the SPP
When a Rossi reactor melts down, the reactor goes to 2000C and when the
hydrogen explodes, it send out 2000C droplets of liquid metal and plasma in
all directions and for a long distance.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, statistical control
First I've heard of such a thing. The meltdowns I've heard about have
simply been that: meltdowns, not explosions. Pons Fleischmann had
theirs melt through several inches of concrete flooring. No big deal.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
When a Rossi
On meltdown, the Rossi reactor has 3 or 4 bars or may be more of compressed
2000C hydrogen in the reaction chamber. What will happen when that hydrogen
hit the air upon reaction chamber failure?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
First I've heard of such
Thanks Axil. Cool Explanation. Unfortunately, about par for the course in
your theorizings I cannot understand it. I do not see a single
reference to muons nor how much power is required for them to do their
thing. Perhaps it is implied... heavily implied. This isn't a
connecting of the
There's quite a difference between asking what Will Happen and saying that
such such thing DOES Happen.
I'm saying such such a thing Hasn't Been Reported. It Probably Would
Have been reported if it DID happen, so I'm stretching the inductive
reasoning to It Probably Didn't Happen unless you
*It Probably Would Have been reported if it DID happen,*
Yes, it is a matter of opinion. But I am sure that if it does happen, you
won't hear about the explosion from Rossi.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
There's quite a difference between asking
DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor. If the
source of that field is localized to a few nanometers, that means that by
the inverse square law or the cube law if you like, the power at a few
nanometers is 20,000,000 to the second or third power tesla. Now that is a
80 matches
Mail list logo
