On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if
> true, it came from some other mysterious process.
>
Perhaps it would help if we could move beyond generalizations and get
concret
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos
> because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true.
>
Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
With the hydrino explosion reportedly with 10,000 suns concentration ...
>
I have been trying to get a sense of what 10,000 suns would look like in
the lab. I can only imagine it would be bright. I tried to get some
numbers on what levels of
I wrote:
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way the testing done on
> behalf of BLP at Harvard-Smithsonian CfA is characterized.
>
What I need to come clean with is that I've been a little unfair, here.
Because it turns out that the University of California at Berkeley has
provided
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson wrote:
A magnifying glass appears to reduce the effective area by a relatively
> large amount, although I suspect the concentration is much less that 10,000
> to one. It would be easy to believe that the linear size of the apparent
> sun at the fo
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
One solution could be that there exists another QM theory for hydrinos
> only, they could simply be a new particle in QM speak or perhaps utilzing
> some new force or whatnot. Thats it and
> especially when
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Try Bechtel/Kresge. You do not need a visitors card there and they have
> most of the good Journals.
Good tip -- I'll take a look.
With the guest card I have, I can log onto the Berkeley campus-wide journal
site, download PDFs for just about
See:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Eric
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with
> Poher’s device ...
I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the
opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of
wil
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Steve High wrote:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:07:28#SHT_provides_video_of_hydrogen_production_during_TRC_3rd-party_test
Note that the nuclear binding energy of oxygen is ~ 7.7 MeV (the amount you
would need to separate all of the nucleons)
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Interesting article. A quote:
Recently, however, scientists at University of Strasbourg, France have
> proposed that this limitation can be addressed by using miniaturized
> ferromagnetic electrodes to create powerful localized force fields tha
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
We need to distinguish between “nuclear” and “fusion.” The is little
> evidence of a fusion reaction in any form of LENR, sorry to say, but yes,
> the gain is nuclear, in the sense of nuclear mass being converted into
> energy in some way, which
I wrote:
In PdD and NiH, fast alphas and protons.
Make that, "In PdD and NiH, fast protons." Fast alphas have also been
seen, but to my knowledge not in NiH systems.
Eric
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
1) Deuterium does not convert into helium
>
Never since the advent of Bacon and the scientific method did a single
experiment or set of experiments overturn a whole body of previous
*experimental* results. When there's a new result, there'
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
I have a few observations that are not being discussed here (and I may be
> missing something) from the slides from the MIT Colloquium.
>
>- *The report for the control experiment with no excess heat also
>showed the decline of the M/e=4
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am asking these questions in an attempt to determine the quantum step
> energy levels associated with spin coupling.
When I think of nuclear spin coupling, I think of a nucleus with different
energy levels. Each level has a unique set of
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I find it difficult to understand a situation where a multi-million dollar
> company can exist and prosper for a quarter century without the development
> of a single commercially viable product...
>
Here in California some startups will start out
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Since Yoshino did include slides showing
> the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have
> been seen.
>
I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the
class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (whi
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain
> mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to
> the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically
> rather low.
>
I
Jack,
Do you use a Markov Chain-based generator?
Eric
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan <
alset9te...@gmail.com> wrote:
* * * EINSTEIN'S EPIPHANY ILLUSTRATED:TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID
> Transdimensional Relativity EPIPHANY. . . .
>
> TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID is HYPERSPACE=Da
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the
> end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to
> disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of
> gas molecules. More li
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Slide 47 shows a significant difference.
>
A qualitative increase is seen in M/e=2 species in both the excess heat run
and the control on both slides 46 and 47. We only have two trials, so we
don't have a sense of what the trend was over a la
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:02 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan <
alset9te...@gmail.com> wrote:
In light of this: Markovian Randomness is an absurdity. . .
>
Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification.
Eric
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> *The at least one electron-donor material is selected from the group
> consisting of: Cs, Ba, Sr, Rb, Li, Na, Ca, K, Fr, Ra, in particular this
> electron-donor material is Cesium.*
>
(From Piantelli's patent.)
I'm not a fan of Piantellli's un
I wrote:
All of the metals above appear to have low work functions. What is meant by
> "electron-donor" in this context appears to be that they're hot cathodes.
> ...
>
Also note that some of the metals in the list are radioactive, so they or
their daughters will give off alphas or betas or fissi
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
In fact, as should be apparent to Mills the radiation seen in several
> remote galaxies comes from such a great distance that it must be strongly
> red-shifted, by the time we get it - but RM proposes a value that is LESS
> than the value seen. D
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
In the original article, the line at 3.5 keV, like all spectral lines is a
> very sharp peak, so sharp as to look like a straight line - as it should
> found that way in Mills’ theory.
>
I thought that Mills's theory predicts "continuum radiatio
I wrote:
I'm reminded of how 1/137 somehow becomes the fine structure constant
> (=137.035,999,173(35)) in some people's minds. I guess for BLP's purposes,
> it does not matter.
>
Sorry, that's supposed to be 1/137.035,999,173(35).
Eric
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> If Elon Musk wants to be buried on Mars surrounded by legends of vigorous
> and healthy pioneering stock ...
>
Perhaps "legions" of vigorous and healthy pioneering stock? I doubt Elon
Musk is aiming quite so high for what can be accomplished in
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
> Personal gripe of mine: ... I get really tired hearing about all the
> mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L
> about what someone perceives as a critical an
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
... I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or
> experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone
> perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:18 AM, David Roberson wrote:
The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it
> may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements.
> I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real
> instruments instead
I wrote:
If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21
> eV to use for free energy speculation.
>
Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.)
Eric
Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think
there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I
gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton
(currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular
momentum (in c
I wrote:
I gather that the idea is that ... some kind of shell model [is involved].
>
Another analogy that might be relevant -- there could be different
"isotopes" for protons and neutrons, e.g., bound states with differing
numbers of quarks.
Eric
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others.
> Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks
> have variable mass?
Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton
m
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3
> quarks.
>
My recollection is that there are three "valence quarks" which contribute
to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of "sea
quarks" that do no
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it
> has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into
> intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation.
If you change the intri
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in
> his reaction.
>
It would also be nice if someone knowledgeable about hydrinos can explain
how an electron (spin=+/- 1/2) becomes a photon (spin=0) at the most
redundant
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
> In a very strong magnetic field, the virtual meson jumps out of the
> confinement box very often because the floor of the box is raised very
> high. Many mesons are produced that eventually decay to muons that catalyze
> hydrogen fusion.
>
This
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Once the energy level of the magnetic field get up 140 MeV( the mass of the
> Meson) the meson is no longer virtual and will not decay.
>
> Less than 140 MeV, based on the energy/time uncertainty principle, the
> decay time of the virtual meson is
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
A real muon may hang around for so long that it may produce a fusion
> explosion.
>
Yes -- if this thought experiment in any way models reality, perhaps you
could obtain a critical density of muons and then have a problem on your
hands (until the
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
I am worried about the impending LENR technologies, especially the suncell.
>
Personally, I would not lose much sleep over the SunCell. I am hopeful,
even optimistic, however, about the possibility of a functioning LENR
system being made avai
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, wrote:
The whole thing boils down to the stucture of the electron and photon. If
> the electron/photon are is described as a point particles
> no classical explanation can be given for the quantum entanglement.
>
Photons and electrons are described not as point
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, wrote:
Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually
> returns
> to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force
> again.)
>
Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are affected by Coulomb
attraction.)
Er
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Further, if the orbital electron gives up all spin momentum, it might not
> be freed but cease to exist entirely!
>
Then we have a charge conservation problem on our hands.
Eric
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, wrote:
However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free
> electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the
> electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;)
>
If we say that the s quantum number (aka "intrinsic spin") is co
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of
> the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory,
> with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between
> the “shrinkage” an
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the
> nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there.
>
It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special
with regard to the orbit
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time
> understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom
> because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the
> stability of the point itself.
T
See:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-invest-in-helion-a-nuclear-fusion-startup/
Some points to mention:
- Three years for them to get things going is considered a long time
(cf. BLP).
- They do not appear to be using d+t, and instead are using just
deuterium
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
* BLP is feeling embolden by the recent June and July SunCell
> demonstrations. While many skeptics continue to express a number of
> legitimate doubts... apparently BLP has none.
I respect your
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, wrote:
A metal is an environment where lots of charged bodies are closely packed
> together. I don't think an electron in such an environment can be truly
> seen as
> free. I.e. perhaps electrons in the conduction band actually migrate from
> one
> atom to the nex
I feel like Vortex would not be Vortex without the occasional religious
digression.
Eric
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
The problem is the noise. Noise affects the FWHM of the system and
> normally getting this noise low enough so that the FWHM is smaller than
> 1keV (to get some resolution of low keV photons) requires cooling the
> sensor to liquid nitrogen tem
I wrote:
On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere,
> but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down.
>
Apparently I didn't look too far. There are several references to his
using a cloud chamber. Here is a brief description from Steven Krivit
(search for "clou
The signal to noise ratio has taken a nosedive. I'm sure this is just a
momentary thing, and the key individuals driving the noise will quickly
come to their senses.
I'm going to take the liberty of mixing lots of metaphors. Imagine we're
in a room at someone's home and it's at a party. The peo
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Per Mr. Beene's request I have posted this on my google drive:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBWjJXaWdjWTlTWGc/edit?usp=sharing
Va'vra was ahead of his time. To quote one of the last slides: "This is
conventionally explai
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
It occurred to me that the formation of a pair of DDL deuterium atoms may
> lead to the He with small releases of energy as the D molecule forms just
> before the fusion occurs.
As we wait for the TIP report (or TIP2 report, as it's sometimes bei
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field.
>
What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces
them?
Eric
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 w
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Axil Axil 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 nuclear reactions. T
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil 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 the problem of g
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil 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
nonetheless. Fi
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.
>
Yes, DGT was rumored to have said something along those lines.
> If the source of that field is localized to a few nanometers, that means
> that by the inverse square law or
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova
> because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam.
I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1
Tesla field was localized to withi
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists
> in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do
> you know the size of the reaction at time zero?
>
Perhaps you're referring to these slides?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson wrote:
An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is
> due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas
> that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is
> seen would
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large
> number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as
> we close in on those individual sources.
>
If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf
>
The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under
strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It
does mention some interesting points, however:
- "It is kn
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:50 PM, CB Sites wrote:
Jed is write in my opinion between the deniers of global warming and the
> skeptic of cold fusion, in some aspects.
>
For anyone who may be new to the list, global warming is one of several
topics that perennially pop up during lulls. The most vo
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ron Kita wrote:
Not sure IF this is news:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-splitter-ordinary-aaa-battery.html
>
This is an interesting article. It suggests nickel oxide has a relatively
low work function. I assume the water splitting occurs from electr
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) -
> I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already
> cited this, I apologize for the duplication.
>
I had a moment to read this paper. Va'vra id
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, David Roberson wrote:
This is exactly why so many question the science. A good scientist should
> remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not
> settled as some seem to believe.
>
One doesn't need a fully worked out science to feel gr
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my
> expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
> standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are
> willing to give the
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order
> yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial
> chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data
> over a restricted r
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley
wrote:
Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as
> called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis.
>
For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected
members of the IPP
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
> I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know
> if UV is emitted?
>
Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some
pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions.
Eric
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery
> numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive
> graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly,
> that's where the
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on "the integrity of the
> majority of climate scientists". I'm interested in seeing if there's real
> science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time
> is: NO. W
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more
> rapid rise, how much more in error could they be?
How confident are you of this assertion?
> How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be co
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several
> different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable
> period. Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable.
The second statement
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not
> come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us. Everyone is
> entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run.
>
I actually don't think
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able
> to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.
>
Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards
of submerging the
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is
> science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would
> claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to
> religious questions to me have be
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will
> stop asking me questions and I will stop responding.
>
> You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the
> time away. Besides, I am not startin
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
The point is, there is NO ONE on this planet that I know who doesn't
> possess a personal collection of faults for which they are trying to find a
> better way of juggling in a more elegant way.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
***Then why do some Vorts say that the discussion is not for Vortex, even
> when the thread title is obviously [OT Off Topic]?
>
Just my personal view on this one. There are some off-topic discussions
that are benign and others that lead to
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Kevin O'Malley
wrote:
The topic of aliens is totally benign,
> ***I have not found that topic to be benign.
>
I'm not talking about in discussions about aliens in general, I'm talking
about discussions about them in the context of Vortex. I've seen exactly
zero
c water lilies, and the other side thinks it's pixie dust, then do
> the forum rules apply to both sides? No sneering, that kind of thing? Or
> do the forum rules only apply to the unfavoured side.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Eric Walker
> wrote:
>
>&g
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
Some good quotes: after the Model T, people did not say: "There will be new
> jobs for horses we can't imagine!" There is not a rule that says, "better
> technology makes more better jobs for horses."
>
Pleasantly apocalyptic.
I like this on
Just a note to some of the newer Vorts who may be wondering how moderation
works in Vortex. Vortex is moderated, but only very lightly. The list
relies heavily upon the self-discipline of members to keep a courteous tone
and to moderate the amount of their own contributions. Ideally the tone of
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) –
> which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated
> meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of
> any particle ...
I wrote:
Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of
> the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid
> angle, this will add up to 511 keV.
>
Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.
One possibility is that
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
> which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
> by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
> many protons.
>
Sound
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
> lack of fusion.
I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for
future gloating. ;)
Eric
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it
> will consist of two simultaneous miracles.
Yes -- agreed.
> Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter
> earlier - and there really w
Three additional points to add:
* I'm still waiting for a careful writeup of Mizuno's latest NiH/NiD work.
What we've seen are some slides. It seems premature at this point to draw too
many conclusions.
* We know relatively little about nickel systems compared to palladium systems.
I assume t
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
> of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.
>
Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the
proposed p-e-p reaction.)
Mesons in your approach prod
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
This is not correct.
>
> A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this
> almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
> produced at any temperature.
>
Could you point us to something credible tha
301 - 400 of 1527 matches
Mail list logo
