Saturday, September 10, 2016

SEP 10, 2016 LENR- REALITY IGNORED?

MOTTO

Image result for "Reality ignored" quotationsImage result for reality quotes

Tell me what reality are you ignoring and I tell you who you are.  (Atlantidic Proverb)
DAILY NOTES
a) About ignoring reality in/of  LENR


Edmund Storms says:




Peter, you said on your blog that predictions about LENR are not available. I would like to call your attention to the predictions I made about the expected behavior in the reference below.  In addition, if the NAE is the nano-crack, a number of predictions can be made about how to generate them.  The problem is not the absence of predictions. The problem is the absence in current theories of any relationship between the proposed nuclear reaction and the chemical-physical structure. The theories focus on the nuclear process without taking the real physical-chemical environment into account.  This defect seems to be totally ignored by you and everyone else. I see no progress being possible until the real conditions related to the LENR process are considered. In addition, my attempts to do this are largely ignored. 

 Very inspiring! Thanks dear Ed! See please the highlighted text- as the author shows it, it is sad case of IGNORED REALITY.
Unfortunately, Ed is driven by inertia (probably) to say:
This defect is TOTALLY IGNORED BY YOU and everybody else- and I find this unfair for me and to many of the 'everybody else" 
I dare to claim some priorities in considering Cold Fusion/LENR  in a chemical, even more than chemical context: active sites, catalysis, materials science, nanoplasmonics- up to my recent model:

 ATOMIC MODEL OF THE STRUCTURE OF LENR SCIENCE
Sciences on which LENR is based:

                                                       NUCLEUS
       Nuclear Physics 
       LAYER K
       Solid State Physics
       Collective Phenomena
       LAYER L
       Nanotechnology
       Nanoplasmonics
       LAYER M
       Materials Science
       Catalysis Science
       Engineering 
        Chemistry 
first published in Jan 2016 but totally ignored- so we are in the same boat with Ed Storms. 

Worse things than ignoring also can happen to reality- as rejection, mutilation, remaking in falsity... An example discussed here is the systematic action of destructive demonization 'decorating' Rossi with dreadful sins and flaws and imperfections. I asked Rossi for a 

 b) Very short interview about Rossi's technological vandalism:

  Dear Andrea Rossi,
 There are no limits, rationality, decency in the campaign for your character assassination - on the Web- at the Court it just has started
Anyway one of the extreme accusations not in the legal document as far as I
 know was of VANDALISM see below:
- Rossi has extracted the flowmeter from the plant and tried to carry it home...
Answer
False and no evidence

 "Rossi has torn out from the plant a steam trap and lot of sensors"
Answer
False and no evidence

 Let's think a bit- Andrea Rossi- 173 cm tall and 63 kg,. is by far not kind of Maciste, Hercule or Arnold Schwarzenegger; the water pipe was DN 40 and the steam pipe much greater- vandalism impossible!

A.R.:
All the instrumentation was of the ERV and I touched nothing
By the way Darden and his men have been there many times and never noticed anything if the sort
Nobody took off the plant anything and nobody made complaints about this for one year.
DAILY NEWS

1) 0044.0_Rossi_response_to_MfJ.pdf
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/0044.0_Rossi_response_to_MfJ.pdf

 2) “Nature’s Energy” — New Video Introducing Brillouin Energy
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/09/10/natures-energy-new-video-introducing-brillouin-energy/
http://ecat.org/2016/brillouin-energy-introduction-video/

3) The Power of the SunCell®
http://njbmagazine.com/monthly_articles/the-power-of-the-suncell/
It is a comment by my friend Doug Marker there!

4) In Danish- Aarhus University connects to the controversial project on cold fusion
Aarhus Universitet kobler sig på omstridt projekt om kold fusion

5) A series of demonization-of-Rossi actions by Abd ulRahman Lomax

LENR IN CONTEXT-1

Who is getting left behind in the internet revolution?
Equally important: Who is left behind in the LENR Revolution?

 LENR IN CONTEXT-2

 Hive consciousness

Hive consciousness

New research puts us on the cusp of brain-to-brain communication. Could the next step spell the end of individual minds?Hive consciousness

New research puts us on the cusp of brain-to-brain communication. Could the next step spell the end of individual minds?


Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Abd ulRahman LomaxSeptember 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM

    Peter, are you aware that your two memes contradict each other, if Truth = Reality?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abd ulRahman LomaxSeptember 10, 2016 at 1:30 PM

    "5) A series of demonization-of-Rossi actions by Abd ulRahman Lomax
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/862'

    That link is to an announcement of the Rossi objection to Darden's Motion for Judgment, not to posts by me, demonization or otherwise.

    You may have meant https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/852

    There is no "demonization" of Rossi there. However what might be called demonization of me by Rossi is quoted there. Rossi demonizes. Haven't you noticed? It seems that of late, you also do this. Above you call some comments that have been made, by an insider, "vandalism." No, they are comments, taken out of context, giving that person's understanding of events. We have, so far, been told very little of what IH people have experienced, as clear affirmation. Rumors become exaggerated, etc. Timing is lost; for example, if Rossi removed equipment from the Plant, it was done at the beginning, and Rossi had people helping him. You do not actually link to or quote the original "claims" about flowmeter and removal. You end up reacting to what is in your own imagination, instead of grounding it in reality, what was actually said, by whom it was said, when and where it was said, and what do they report of their experience?

    In this loss of contact with reality, Demons play.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simon DerricuttSeptember 11, 2016 at 4:33 AM

    Peter - for the SunCell, Dr. Mills could have used currently-available PVs at a greater distance from the source than the 1000-sun PVs at around a foot away that he specifies he needs before a demonstration is possible. Yes, the system would not be compact but, if the COP is as stated and the light output is as stated, the system could be shown to be producing enough power to run itself and a load and thus be undeniably proven to work. Instead of this definitive demonstration, we are given meter readings as evidence and a promise that once the 1000-sun PVs are available he'll have a commercially-viable system.

    Since buying in 200-sun-capable PVs _is_ possible, and placing them further away is an obvious fix for the overheating problem, the excuses for not doing this seem a bit thin and the logical deduction is that the published light output is bad data. We can't say whether this is deliberately wrong or just mistaken, but we can be sure that Dr. Mills also knows that it is wrong since an undeniable demonstration would earn him a lot of money and much kudos.

    The inescapable conclusion is that SunCell won't perform as promised. As with Rossi, we are given data from measurements where the corroborative evidence doesn't stack up. Also as with Rossi, there is a feeling that earlier experiments had some success at times, but that the successes were over-inflated (see the third-party tests on earlier CIHT cells where it seems reasonable that milliwatts were produced and the promised scale-ups to kW cells didn't materialise but instead a totally new method was put forward).

    For Rossi, if 1MW was produced then such an amount of heat would have had visible consequences. Those consequences were not seen, and therefore it is an inescapable conclusion that 1MW was not produced. Since it also appears that there was initially no provision made for dealing with 1MW, it is also almost certain that Rossi did not expect to need to deal with 1MW and thus fudged the measurements instead. Exactly how this was arranged is not really material - what is important is that the measurements were wrong and that it is obvious that they were wrong. If you want to contend that the measurements were correct then you will need to also contend that either Conservation of Energy or the laws of Thermodynamics (at a human scale) are wrong. This seems to end up as a binary decision: either Rossi got the measurements deliberately wrong or we'll need to rewrite all the textbooks for thermodynamics and heat engineering.

    I remain hopeful that Brillouin will prove that their system works, even though their theory predicts a lot more intermediate products than are seen and must therefore be wrong.

    Abd's clarity of vision is helpful. For a long time he was also the only supplier I could find that would sell small quantities of the Palladium salts and heavy water so that people could test out the co-deposition experiment for themselves without needing to spend a lot of money. The implications there are "don't believe this works, test it yourself". It's worth supporting Alan Smith and LookingForHeat for the same reason - they are seeking the truth and making it easy for others to replicate the results.

    Piantelli's experiments seem sound to me. Ni/H should therefore be able to be made to work. Rossi's claims to have improved on Piantelli's work are thus initially plausible, and at the mW to watt level it would be hard to argue with them. At the MW level claimed, though, the lack of visible consequence of that amount of heat says that the measurements are definitely wrong. Whereas a few watts could be lost in the noise of the building heat-flows, a megawatt can't be missed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sdoppiamo CupidoSeptember 11, 2016 at 7:16 AM

    Hi Peter,
    if we exclude Andrea Rossi it seems no one has yet found a way to produce energy on a continuative way with LENR. Perhaps the armed forces, scientists working on "hot" fusion, or secret services of various countries, have done everything to hinder research, but if it were easy, someone in the world would do it after almost 30 year

    But there are a lot of evidences, maybe small, of nuclear transmutations in many different experiments.

    We are capable of sending a probe to pick up a rock sample on an asteroid, but we are not able to study what happens on the surface of a palladium filament?

    Perhaps we should leave Andrea Rossi on his way, and if he is right this will open a new era; in the meantime focus on small evidence, without thinking for now to the energy future of humanity.

    Put simply skeptics in front of phenomena to explain and understand.

    What do you think about these considerations?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)