And for logical thinking even big damm can ge broken by freezing, fibrations etc. easilly? And when it is broken it floods more easilly (used fuel)? Right?
This point is an interesting one when put in abstract terms. To assess its relevance and plausibility in the present context, one must find a way to make it concrete, by expressing it in terms of muons and related concepts.
My difficulty with this explanation of theirs is that it seems to just push the energy concentration problem back one step, to ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium. But how was that reversal of entropy possible, one wonders.
Yes this is the question, how could a catalyst do this. Dr. Olafsson did send me a paper in 2013 entitled "Hydrogen Spillover in heterogeneous catalysis" ( Rozanov et al 1997 ), where spillover is defined as the 'interphase diffusion of absorbed hydrogen'. Of course the phases of hydrogen in the paper are nothing exotic, but it's background on how the catalysts function in normal industrial applications.
This point is an interesting one when put in abstract terms. To assess its relevance and plausibility in the present context, one must find a way to make it concrete, by expressing it in terms of muons and related concepts.
Maybe jump to piantelli patent and its reaction triggering methods (who was first holmlid or piantelli?)? Holmlid catalyst have too much energy level to do useful XH (maybe?), but I drop data that common used Ni can do muon behavior too. (or I have error in measuring, or my TC steel tube have something mystically transferred to holmlid catalyst and do job instead Ni) (my things much closer piantelli as holmlid)
So to health/bomb etc. broblem. Many lenr systems may have erratic muon &mesons etc. behavior. How many of them have been measured with equipments that show muons?
And what happens when pion/mesons etc. sub particles hit to air nitrogen? Can it generate blue glow like:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…t/580-20160501-172719-jpg
I think me365 got hit when he do 5kw reactor experiments. It quite sure have 30g or more fuel and he maybe runned it enough intensive. And it can be more dangerous when shutdown because easilly think it is safe when cold. Holmlid measurements show only 50% flow drop when unpowered..
I maybe got some blood cell damage but survived. (from ~8g of active fuel) Such damage is hard to detect immediatly, because blood cells live week or something. If do intensive work near then easilly sterilize all bones and during first week notice nothing but next week may die without continous blood transfer / bone interior transfer.(?)
Is me365 still alive? His experiments.tk domain have gone (?)
Is there any people that have contacts to check he is fine?
Quote from eros: “Is me365 still alive? His experiments.tk domain have gone (?)
Is there any people that have contacts to check he is fine?”
He is conducting an experiment, right in this moment.
<a href="https://plot.ly/~zexx86/78.embed" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">plot.ly/~zexx86/78.embed</a>
Thanks. He is maybe one person that have some skills to check posible muons?
He now seems to be only actively exchanging information with MFMP "core members"
And I don't think he is very freely talking with them at the moment. This may change soon, I hope.
It is far from that simple.
proteinpower.com/drmike/2008/11/17/gary-taubes-responds/ (on Asian diet)
Taubes wrote: "In the case of Japan, for instance, the bulk of the population consumed brown rice rather than white until only recently, say the last 50 years."
That's wrong. They consumed white rice, not brown rice. The only time in the last 150 years people ate brown rice was toward the end of WWII when the government ordered them to.
More to the point, rural people eat gobs of refined white rice now, and yet they are thin. As I said, I know many people who eat large portions of refined white rice three meals a day. They are thin and healthy all their lives, and they tend to live a long time. I know several who eat lots of sweets such as chocolate and pastry, as do I. My diet is mainly rice, bread and pastry -- probably unhealthy in many ways -- but I am thin.
Taubes is a certified idiot who does not understand elementary facts such as how electricity works, as you see in the quotes here on p. 4. He thinks there is extra electricity on weekends because factories do not use it:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf
His book and his interview was crammed full of stupid nonsense such as this. He is also a liar and a psychopath who told Storms and others that he was happy to destroy people's lives and ruin careers if he could make money doing it.
Given the possibility that the muons may not actually be muons
This posibility in my case ofcouse exist. Then there is something else that after shields penetrating show in Cu wrapped GM tube. And ofcouse minor posibility that something went wrong in geiger just that situation. (neutrons posibility need investigate also)
Better/accurate/etc measurements should do. From other projects/people too.
Can we talk about white rice?
happy to destroy people's lives and ruin careers if he could make money doing it
Eh
It's very OT so I won't say much about it but Jed's anti-Atkins rants, wrong as usual, neglect the fact that genetics determines a significant part of an individual's internal handling of food. Many people of Asian descent handle all sorts of carbohydrates very well while a significant portion of people of European ancestry do not. Their condition has been characterized-- look up "metabolic syndrome" (formerly Syndrome X) which is a very common (in Western society) prediabetic state. For those with a heavy dose of diabetic genes, refined carbohydrates are poison. Slightly modified Atkins diets (with reduced saturated fats for example and more vegetable protein and fiber) are prescribed or a low carb modification of a Mediterranean diet is chosen. For those without those prediabetic genes, all sorts and amounts of carbohydrates are fine. WTF does any of this have to do with LENR other than illustrating Jed's superficial and usually wrong way to examine phenomena?
ETA: another illustration of genetic variations is the handling of alcohol. A subpopulation of Asians and coincidentally, native Americans, lack genes which either allow them to recognize when they are drinking to excess or genes which handle liver breakdown of alcohol efficiently. These people tend to become alcoholics and to have particularly virulent complications from it. Yet another genetic variation is in handling sodium. For a subpopulation, unrestricted sodium means early onset high blood pressure and eventual damage to heart, eyes, brain and blood vessels. For others a great deal of salt is well tolerated. Much of how we are is determined by our genes, a factor Jed seems to ignore. One trick to good health is to know what our genes cause our bodies to do and science is just starting to approach that issue.
It's very OT so I won't say much about it but Jed's anti-Atkins rants, wrong as usual, neglect the fact that genetics determines a significant part of an individual's internal handling of food.
There may be genetic differences, but that cannot explain the recent increase in obesity that Taubes attempted to explain. There has been no change in the genetics of the US and European populations that have grown obese since the 1970s. There has been no decrease in exercise. Only the type and quantity of food have changed. See:
"Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In United States, Study Finds"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2009/05/090508045321.htm
Many people of Asian descent handle all sorts of carbohydrates very well while a significant portion of people of European ancestry do not.
Europeans who eat East Asian diets of mainly white rice do not get fat.
As long as you eat moderate caloric quantities of food you will not gain weight. You can even eat nothing but sugary junk food and lose weight. Your teeth might rot, but you will not grow fat. See:
"Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
"This is so unlikely I am going to do something else."
I maybe got some blood cell damage but survived.
I think me365 got hit when he do 5kw reactor experiments. It quite sure have 30g or more fuel and he maybe runned it enough intensive. And it can be more dangerous when shutdown because easilly think it is safe when cold. Holmlid measurements show only 50% flow drop when unpowered..
I maybe got some blood cell damage but survived. (from ~8g of active fuel) Such damage is hard to detect immediatly, because blood cells live week or something. If do intensive work near then easilly sterilize all bones and during first week notice nothing but next week may die without continous blood transfer / bone interior transfer.(?)
This is of high concern. When Pons and Fleischmann had a meltdown in 1985, they scaled down. Sometimes people think the difficulty in acceptance is from not having a large effect. The real difficult is not having control and therefore reproducibility.
If you got sick from radiation, you have a major effect, not some small thing. A hundredth of a major effect like that should be way-silly above noise. If it isn't reproducible, you have little but an anecdote that people may tell for years that accomplishes almost nothing. High risk, low result.
Nanospire. https://nanospireinc.com/NanoSpire_Presentations.html
PESwiki, interview with Mark LeClair (and Serge Lebid and Edmund Pope of Nanospire). http://pesn.com/2012/04/28/960…n_Water/transcription.htm
The "physics" is fantastic. Seeping claims are made without any detail as to the actual evidence, just some amazing thing that was seen. How one gets from the things seen to the "explanation" is unclear. I strongly suspect that the cause and effect relationshp is the other way around. Radiation sickness could cause delusional thinking! Bottom line, in 2010, Nanospire and LeClair told an amazing story. None of it has been confirmed.
The PESWiki interview was in 2012. I notice this:
QuoteDisplay MoreM: Well, I have a device right now that I could easily build that would heat your house but obviously with the radioactivity you would not like that. So we need to do more research in terms of getting this thing into the equivalent of a nuclear power plant situation where you are producing mass quantities and you have appropriate radiation shielding. Or we need to get it so we do not produce radiation and we just extract the zero point energy from it. It is a duel goal we are doing and we are going to do both. We are in the commercialization stage now. There is nothing stopping me from building a water heater. The core of the water heater would cost about 25 dollars to build and then there is the cost of the pump which is a couple hundred bucks. I built the entire reactor for 250 bucks. No one can claim to build a 3000 watt reactor for that price. In terms of simplicity it does not get any simpler than this. In fact, maybe that is why it has escaped detection for so long because it was so simple.
The upfront capital cost is a fraction of everyone else's equipment. I don't care how they do it.
S: You have four patents. If someone were to digest those patents or there were some simple language wrapped around them is it conceivable that a do it yourself-er could go build a 3000 watt reactor with similar materials?
M: Absolutely, but I would not recommend that. They would end up with radiation sickness. I have had radiation sickness for more than a year from two separate experiments, and believe me it was nasty. I strongly discourage any home inventors from doing it. I also want to point out that it is covered by the patent and it would constitute infringement, including R and D.
S: My understanding is that you can build one yourself but you cannot sell with a patent.
M: You cannot use or sell or make it for yourself. That is the mistake in the notion. Patents are patents. You cannot build a device without a license, period. That is the way it works.
Mark is smart. He has his associates totally impressed. But he doesn't know anything about patent law, yet is totally sure of himself.
QuoteThe exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others, or at least to try to prevent others, from commercially making, using, selling, importing, or distributing a patented invention without permission.[2][3]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…on_law_research_exemption. He is incorrect, essentially. Strictly speaking what might be prohibited is certain kinds of use. Someone who builds a patented device for their own research may wish to be aware of the law on this, and I do not find it crystal clear. But LeClair's claim is too far.
QuoteDisplay MoreThe common law research exemption is an affirmative defense to infringement where the alleged infringer is using a patented invention for research purposes. Thedoctrine originated in the 1813 decision by Justice Joseph Story appellate decision Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 Fed. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813). Story famously wrote that the intent of the legislature could not have been to punish someone who infringes "merely for [scientific] experiments, or for the purpose of ascertaining the sufficiency of the machine to produce its described effects." Subsequent decisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.
In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable.
In Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under 35 U.S.C §271(e)(1) if there is a reasonable basis to believe that the compound tested could be the subject of an FDA submission and if the experiments will produce the types of information relevant to an Investigational New Drug or New Drug Application.
In cases where the Supreme Court has ruled narrowly (e.g., pharmaceutical drugs only) and a lower court has ruled more broadly, further litigation in the lower courts will often be necessary before a subsequent case will resolve the issue more generally as a matter of settled case law.[2]
In other words, in the opinion of whoever wrote that section of the article, the matter is not settled completely. I find the idea that a research university is prohibited from verifying that a patent works because "research is its business." This flies in the face of the common-law exemption. I suspect that the case here is that the University was conducting for-profit research, but I have not read the case. As well, I don't see why a commercial enterprise would be prohibited from verifying that a patent works, in order to know, in advance of legal process, whether or not a patent is valid or not. It all seems partly inimical to the purpose of patents.
Gameover said:
QuoteHe is conducting an experiment, right in this moment
I watched almost the whole thing. Very interesting temperature behaviour. I wonder what design he was using.
As long as you eat moderate caloric quantities of food you will not gain weight.
\
This is a variation on the thermodynamic argument. This is precisely what Taubes is expert on. Jed, you don't know what you are talking about, you have not done the research and are cherry-picking sources.
You can define "moderate" so that your claim is true. However, calorie restricted diets generally don't work, outside of careful clinical control. And the idea simply ignores most of what is actually going on.
I simply make parallels with cold fusion and cold fusion pseudoskepticism. Taubes is not a "believer" in some theory. He has, however, form opinions and hypotheses to be tested. You are asserting hypotheses as fact that are not shown by controlled experiment, but through argument and theory and a lot of poor assessment from epidemiological studies.
Taube's understanding of diet is far more sophisticated than you think And an aspect of that is his recognition of how precious little about nutrition is known in a scientific sense.
what is the problem with that "moderate caloric argument"? It looks plausible. However, metabolism is variable, and so is behavior, and they are all interrelated with diet. I'd suggest, if you care, that you read Taubes on the stupidities that are asserted as the "calories in, calories out argument." And, by the way, food calories are not thermodynamic calories, you know that, right? It is not just that they are kilocalories, they are also weighted by research that was done about a hundred years ago.
http://fourhourworkweek.com/20…ie-isnt-always-a-calorie/
http://www.scientificamerican.…-the-wrong-carbohydrates/ gives some history of the "calorie" theory and a test being conducted.
This is really not the place to discuss this so all I will say is look up: -metabolic syndrome -insulin resistance -appetite control . In susceptible individuals, eating carbohydrates (especially but not necessarily refined carbs), starts a cascade of unfortunate results. These include rapid increase in blood sugar, followed by excessive production of insulin, excessive decrease in blood sugar, and uncontrollable increase in appetite. This is accompanied by rises in serum triglycerides and low density lipoproteins which potentially injure blood vessels. Some people have this reaction, others do not. Advocates of weight control methods that neglect appetite control are inherently doomed to failure when carbohydrate sensitive individuals are concerned. Most diet food programs are scams because they include liberal amounts of carbs in the diet, insuring that people will be buying the product forever or until they give up. I suspect this is conscious and deliberate on the part of the companies involved.
Many people of Asian descent handle all sorts of carbohydrates very well while a significant portion of people of European ancestry do not.
More cobblers I'm afraid. Lactose (a carbohydrate) intolerance is very common among Chinese and Japanese people because they were never exposed to dairy-based farming. Likewise there is a tendency to gluten allergy - but accurate figures for this are hard to derive because the current fashion to adopt a zero-gluten diet makes gluten intolerance a popular if inaccurate claim. Gluten is of course, not a carbohydrate- but it is an inseparable part of many cereals - Maize and Rice being almost the only exceptions.
I have explained how the energy production and storage process works in the metalized hydrogen process a dozen times but repetition is always helpful.
Metalized hydrogen is a superatom where the positive charge carriers are located in the center of the crystal and the negative charged carriers are located in a cloud orbiting around the positive center.
The beryllium compressed water describes what is happening as referenced above and LeClair also describes the metalized crystal in some detail.
This metalized structure is an example of HOLE superconductivity. Protons are the holes and they are superconducting.
The photos of this metalized crystal in photo emulsions show what is going on. Four people or groups that I know of have done research on this metalized hydride but they might have not understood what the particle that they were seeing actually was.
These groups begin with the guys describing the monopole, then the AIRBUS guys, next, the Proton 21 people. But the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
Keith does not know where what he is seeing comes from, but he does understand how the metalized hydride behaves by looking at their paths that they follow in photo emmusions.
Keith thinks that the metalized hydride crystal is a tachyon. This tachyon is a very energy intensive analog particle that acts like a monopole. Keith has captured the paths of these particles as they ionize photo emulsion chemicals left by particles along their paths coming out of LENR ash. From this detection method, he has determined the magnetic properties and energy content of these analog particles.
I have continually explained how duality in physics works; metalized hydrides behave like a tachyon. There is an entire field in string theory that predicts what a tachyon will do. One feature of its behavior is Hadronization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization
https://www.scientificamerican…hat-is-known-about-tachy/
I have received criticism about this wild stuff so I will not go on any further unless someone is interested in these phenomena.
The tumbling and rotating paths of a metalized hydride produced in a photo emulsions.
This is a variation on the thermodynamic argument. This is precisely what Taubes is expert on.
The only thing Taubes is an expert in is lying through his teeth. making idiotic assertions, and disrupting scientific research.
Of course this is the thermodynamic argument. It was proved in 1783 by Lavoisier and Laplace, with the first effective modern calorimeter. An ice calorimeter. They measured the metabolic heat and carbon dioxide production of a guinea pig, and determined that the ratio of heat to carbon dioxide is the same as it is with fire.
The caloric content of food is a little complicated. It is measured with the Atwater system, not strictly from calorimetry, although the results with calorimetry are similar for most foods. Some foods take more energy to digest than others. Extremely lean meat takes more energy to digest then you get out of the meat, which is why you starve to death eating only lean meat. Several grains and some plant foods when eaten raw also take more energy to digest then you get out of them. You have to cook them to avoid starving to death. This also killed several European explorers lost in Australia, who did not heed advice from the aborigines. Homo sapiens cannot survive without cooked food. Other species prefer cooked food. See the book, "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" for details.
However, metabolism is variable, and so is behavior, and they are all interrelated with diet.
Variations in human metabolism are small. For people of the same weight and size, they amount a difference of eating about 100 calories per day (1 slice of bread). Variations in digestion are larger, but among healthy people the difference is less than 10% as I recall. See:
http://dietuni.com/diet/the-myth-of-slow-metabolism
A small number of people are genetically unable to digest certain foods, as noted by Mary Yugo:
This is really not the place to discuss this so all I will say is look up: -metabolic syndrome -insulin resistance -appetite control . In susceptible individuals, eating carbohydrates (especially but not necessarily refined carbs), starts a cascade of unfortunate results.
Yes. This is common knowledge. However, most people do not suffer from this problem. Most people are fine eating refined white rice. If everyone in Japan had been afflicted with this problem, the whole nation would have died out in the 19th century when refined white rice became the staple food. Granted, they did have a lot of malnutrition. People grew much taller and larger after WWII with more widespread consumption of milk, meat and other Western foods. The generational difference is dramatic and easily observed in photographs.
I request the moderator to crated a food and nutrition thread and move the posts covering that issue to that new thread. This thread was started to discuss Holmlid work and not food and nutrition and such posts are off topic.
I wonder if such off topic posts are intended to discredit the work of Holmlid by discussing trivial matters not related to LENR.
You can define "moderate" so that your claim is true. However, calorie restricted diets generally don't work, outside of careful clinical control. And the idea simply ignores most of what is actually going on.
Calorie restricted diets always work. People who do not get enough to eat always grow thin, and if the diet continues long enough, they always starve to death. You can see this in photographs of concentration camp victims, and photos of people and animals who die from famine. The victims are always thin.
There is no doubt whatever that modern-day obesity in the US is caused by overeating. In countries such as Italy, France and Japan people do not eat as much food as Americans do, so they are thinner. It is not difficult to measure overall consumption. You can observe individuals or have them keep food diaries, or you can just look at food production and sales and divide by population. You can measure overall food consumption and metabolism in an individual accurately with double-labeled water. That is, water with some of the hydrogen and oxygen replaced with rare isotopes (deuterium and oxygen-18).
