"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Americanist

So I can post stories here from the Flat Earth website, and when people tell me the Earth isn't really flat, I can say "I relayed the story... Nothing more."? OK I see how that works. Let me try that and see what kind of reputation I gain. On second thought, maybe not. They are entertaining stories though.

Regarding the palladium, yes I find that interesting, though I'm not sure you have the story straight on that either.

I'm not sure it was "compromised". What I read are various reports by various researchers that confirmed that they consistently found no unusual results with certain batches of palladium. Then with other batches of Palladium, they sometimes found anomalous results.

Of course the logical thing to do in this case would be to subject the various batches of palladium to more intensive compositional analysis to determine what differences, if any, existed between the batches. If this work was done, I've never seen it, though that doesn't mean it wasn't done. But I did spend a limited amount of time looking for it with no luck. Maybe the analysis was done and I just never found it, but I was curious about what, if anything, was different about the different palladium batches.

reply to post by Americanist

Here's what Peswiki says about the Palladium batches:

Cold fusion

* Specific Material Batches - Succesful replication of the cold fusion reaction appears to be stongly affected by the batch of metal used for the cathode metal. Certain batches of palladium produce the cold fusion reaction more consistently, while others do not work at all. Why, is still not thoroughly understood, but appears to be related to the atomic structure of the metal sample and the amount of impurities within the metal sample.

* Note: The understanding regarding which materials, ratios and conditions are is necessary to achieve a positive cold fusion result is subject to change over time as more research is conducted and data is collected and analyzed. There are still many variables and conditions associated with the cold fusion reaction that have not been fully explored and are currently not well understood. In many cases there are up and down variations in energy output over time, on time scales of days.

While I don't always agree with Peswiki, that information is consistent with what I read at other sources.

I did a little more searching and I still don't find anything conclusive. Why something like the level of impurities in certain batches of Palladium should still be such a matter of mystery after 20 years is a mystery itself.

But I don't see Peswiki using the word "compromised" in relation to the batches, so I don't know where you came up with that.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Standard edition from '09...

Signature of Antimatter Detected in Lightning

www.wired.com...

...and you were saying?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb,

In the case of fusing two identical nucleuses, they would both resonance match with each other's potential wells at the same time, which is even more benneficial

Never mind the spelling error in "beneficial", and a highly unusual plural form of "nucleus", which I've never seen before in a physics paper (nuclei is the norm) -- I've looked at some of the material on that page and it just doesn't sound right, just like that sentence above, which is mumbo jumbo. I also find constant references to Yukawa potential quite strange, because interaction between two nuclei will not follow the same curve, for many reasons. And of course, since Dr. Yukawa published his seminal paper, it was found that the strong force isn't really due to exchange of pions, but is a manifestation of a more complex color field.

And this is yet another example of alphabet soup:

Relativistic movement of electrons along the same lines of motion can help constrain the nuclei magneticly to that line.

Arb, I'm afraid that this page you quoted from is mostly garbage.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Arb, I'm afraid that this page you quoted from is mostly garbage.

Of that I have little doubt. Even the part I quoted is suspect because as I said,

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why something like the level of impurities in certain batches of Palladium should still be such a matter of mystery after 20 years is a mystery itself.

Aside from the "mystery" of why it's still a mystery. it does represent claims made by researchers which this paper elaborates on:

Ten Years of Cold Fusion: An Eyewitness Account

...we had used all the palladium existing in the laboratory, and thus we ordered more of it from the same firm that had provided the previous sample, asking for the same commercial characteristics. When the new palladium arrived, we started another series of experiments, none of which gave any sign of excess heat production. So, there we were: we had no doubt about the correctness of the first measurements, but it had been sufficient to change the sample of palladium for the excess heat to disappear, even though, from a commercial point of view, it was the same kind of palladium. This was the beginning of the project that brought the Group to results quite close to total reproducibility in 1996 (4).

So Scaramuzzi and other researchers definitely reported batch related issues with the palladium

The biggest problem I see is in step 2:



This is where there is a 50 order of magnitude discrepancy between current fusion theory and claimed results, which is easily overcome with a miracle. But there are even more miracles needed:

If you try to extrapolate to low energies the known probabilities at high energies, you find that the probability of such an event is some 50 or more orders of magnitude lower than that needed to account for the measured excess heat (7): in other words, there is no chance that two deuterons will fuse at room temperature. The second miracle pertains to the absence of neutrons (and tritium, and so on) as the ashes of the reaction.

So he's saying not one miracle occurs, but two, however, there's more:

You have to assume that the branching ratio (the relative probabilities of the three branches) is also dramatically altered: you must imagine that the first two reactions become highly improbable, while the third, the one giving rise to a 4He nucleus, has a very high probability, almost 100%. But here we need the third miracle, since we do not see any γ-rays: thus we have to make the hypothesis that the 24 MeV of excess energy are in some way transformed in heat in the lattice of the host metal, the excess heat that you measure with your calorimeter. If these three miracles are produced, then the only expected ash is 4He:

The above cartoon says "Then a miracle occurs", but I couldn't find one that says "Then three miracles occur"

I would like to point out that this explanation of three miracles being needed is not written by a cold fusion critic, but by a cold fusion researcher!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks for the link. As I started reading it, I thought that it's possible that in some cases the excess heat, if it's observed, can be related to solid state phenomena where deuterium ions are being rearranged in the Pd lattice... And indeed later in the paper I saw this.

The possibility that a phase transition is the basic condensed matter phenomenon that gives rise to CF is quite reasonable: it has been proposed that it could be related to the deuterium ions moving from the octahedral to the tetrahedral sites in the palladium lattice.

In short I was thinking (and that's just that, a speculation) that "loading" of Pd with D can lead, effectively, to storing of some energy in the system, as a number of D ions are away from the spots with the lower potential energy. This energy is later released during the measurements.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No, nothing you’ve said makes Mallove “look like a complete nutcase,” nor does Americanist look “quite ignorant,” as you've intimated, by quoting Mallove.

Mallove’s 57 page report “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report” was linked to on page 111.

Mallove describes the circumstances F&P were working under in 1989 on page 10:

. . . Pons and Fleischmann had been forced to make their announcement
via a press conference, rather than through scientific publication.
The reasons for the press conference are too involved to
explore here, although Dr. Fleischmann himself sheds some
additional light on the topic in an essay in this issue (not reprinted
here, see Issue 24 of Infinite Energy). However, it is a matter of
record that Fleischmann and Pons really did not want to make
their disclosure for another eighteen months until they understood
their discovery better. The parallel claims by physicist
Steve Jones of nearby Brigham and Young University, patent
issues, and other conflicts brought the issue into public view in
March 1989. Further complicating the story and enraging other
scientists, lawyers at the University of Utah prohibited or retarded
the disclosure of experimental details by Fleischmann and
Pons. As a historian of this subject, I feel confident in stating that
if Fleischmann and Pons had been allowed to hand out at their
press conference the pre-print of their paper which was later that
spring published in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, the
intensity of opposition to cold fusion would have been reduced
by at least 50%.

F&P are electrochemists, not nuclear physicists, and the important part of their claim was that of excess heat, which they were expertly qualified to measure.

Focusing on the mistake that was made and admitted to regarding neutrons is to cherry-pick a detail and exaggerate its importance.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . Dr. Fleischmann himself sheds some additional light on the topic in an essay in this issue (not reprinted here, see Issue 24 of Infinite Energy).

The essay in question: "Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D System: The Pre-History and History of Our Early Research by Martin Fleischmann, FRS"

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . Dr. Fleischmann himself sheds some additional light on the topic in an essay in this issue (not reprinted here, see Issue 24 of Infinite Energy).

The essay in question: "Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D System: The Pre-History and History of Our Early Research by Martin Fleischmann, FRS"

This is fascinating! I didn't know it was that bad... Dr. Fleischmann seems to have adopted the motto of AmWay: "if you believe enough, facts don't matter!"

He's harping on "Q.E.D. paradigm" literally ad nauseam, without providing a single back-of-the-enevolope sample calculation of what he expects out of application of QED to the problem at hand. Remarkable.

And this is even more remarkable:

We therefore need to ask ourselves: why do the solutions not cool spontaneously?

Well, duh, Dr. Fleischmann, they do! Until they reach the equilibrium with the environment.

Thermal Radiation

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.

...and that's why it's colder on cloudless nights, when the thermal radiation escapes Earth unhindered, and that's why emergency response teams often provide covers made of aluminized Mylar to people, to keep them warm, by trapping thermal radiation inside the cover.

If one places an object in high vacuum, where thermal losses through contact, convection etc are impossible, and the walls of the chamber are kept at a low temperature, the object will cool down "spontaneously", something that Dr. Fleischmann says does not happen.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
F&P are electrochemists, not nuclear physicists, and the important part of their claim was that of excess heat, which they were expertly qualified to measure.

Focusing on the mistake that was made and admitted to regarding neutrons is to cherry-pick a detail and exaggerate its importance.

No Mary, I don't think I've exaggerated the importance of evidence of a nuclear reaction in a cold fusion paper.

They claimed cold fusion, not just excess heat. And the part Fleischmann admitted he was wrong about was a key finding to conclude fusion was taking place. Buddhasystem mentioned one possibility of the excess heat source:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In short I was thinking (and that's just that, a speculation) that "loading" of Pd with D can lead, effectively, to storing of some energy in the system, as a number of D ions are away from the spots with the lower potential energy. This energy is later released during the measurements.

I won't be surprised if someday it's shown there is a source of heat, and it's something along these lines, which will turn out to not be cold fusion.

After all, I can get excess heat out of my pocket hand warmer, just push a button and it starts giving off heat, or this other type, gives off heat just by opening the package and exposing it to air:


The extraordinary claim was cold fusion. By itself, excess heat isn't so extraordinary, lots of processes can produce that.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You would think Fleischmann would know about thermal radiation, right? Maybe he's not as expertly qualified as Mary seems to think?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You would think Fleischmann would know about thermal radiation, right? Maybe he's not as expertly qualified as Mary seems to think?

Amazing but almost inevitable conclusion after reading his opus. He seems to be claiming that using QED would result in absence of thermal radiation. I just don't understand why he (actually fairly well) describes the origin of thermal radiation, from motion of individual particle comprising a body, then proceeds to say that's impossible and one needs QED to "rigorously quantize" stuff, in order to avoid producing thermal radiation. Tough luck. Thermal radiation is present all around us.

And then comes the classic -- that nuclear reactions are different in nature in a solution compared to regular plasma. He's not saying why.

And for serendipity... Despite what he says, a fair number of discoveries were made due to this factor. In fact, I would say that Dr.Fleischmann did not have enough of that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe he's not as expertly qualified as Mary seems to think?

I suspect that Arbitrageur's question indicates a point of view that is severely limited by his refusal to acknowledge good science that is not endorsed by the likes of Carl Sagan.

I remembered Mallove talking about where are F&P now in the series of videos I posted of the 2004 Coast-to-Coast interview that took place 3 months before Mallove's murder. So I pulled out my notes from that interview to search for the section about where F&P were living and working as of 2004. Instead of finding that information I zeroed in on Part 3 of the 12 part series, where F&P’s invention was discussed. I saw that Mallove mentioned “tritium” in reference to F&P thinking that the invention looked like a nuclear source.

Searching the 57 page .pdf “MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report,” I found on pages 19 – 21 a lecture by cold fusion theorist Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, which was given November 11, 1991 at MIT at a birthday celebration of a professor. The .pdf says that Schwinger had resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) to protest its censorship of his theoretical work on cold fusion from APS publications. The title of the lecture is “A Progress Report: Energy Transfer in Cold Fusion and Sonoluminescence.” Mallove states that Schwinger compared the possible theoretical foundation of cold fusion with that of the much more accepted but equally mysterious phenomenon of sonoluminescence. The word “tritium” first appears:

. . . one cannot ignore the evidence accumulated in
many laboratories—of excess heat production, of tritium production—
all of which is characterized by irreproducibility and
by uncontrollable emission in bursts. But, from what has just
been said, that kind of behavior is expected; it is not a basis for
rejecting the reality of the phenomena.

This brings me to study the validity of the case against cold
fusion, as seen by a hot fusioneer—henceforth known as HF—
who rejects the possibility that new physics is involved.

In the hot fusion of two deuterons—the D-D reaction—the
formation of a triton (3H) and a proton proceeds at about the
same rate as that for the creation of 3He and a neutron. But,
given the claims of tritium production in cold fusion experiments,
neutrons at the expected intensities are conspicuously
absent, although low levels of neutrons, appearing in bursts,
have been observed. To HF the conclusion is obvious: No neu-
trons—no tritium—no cold fusion. Moreover, the two cited
reactions are the only important ones in hot fusion. So: No neutrons—
no cold fusion—no excess heat.

Very soon after March 23, 1989—which one might well call Dday—-
the idea was advanced that excess heat is produced by the
formation of 4He in the ground state. To this HF responds that the
suggested reaction is weak, and no one has detected the γ-rays of
roughly 20 MeV that should accompany the formation of 4He.

Then came the suggestion that excess heat might result from
the HD, rather than the DD, reaction. Heavy water (D2O)
always has some small contamination of light water (H2O). The
fusion of a proton and a deuteron produces 3He. To which HF
responds that no γ-ray of roughly 5 MeV, which should accompany
this reaction, has been observed.

With heat production and tritium production allocated to the
HD and DD reactions, respectively, how can one understand
the suppression of neutron production? It may be that two fusing
deuterons populate, not the quite remote ground state, but
rather the first excited state of 4He. That excited state decays
into a triton and a proton. But, decay into 3He and a neutron is
energetically forbidden. Tritium—Yes. Neutrons—No. HF
responds to this by pointing to the absence of the roughly 4
MeV γ-ray that should accompany the 4He excited state.

Thus presented, the experimental aspects of HF’s indictment
of cold fusion come down to the non-existence of various γ-rays
that the tenets of hot fusion require. What rebuttal can one give
to these charges?

Well, consider the following bit of insanity:

The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe he's not as expertly qualified as Mary seems to think?

I suspect that Arbitrageur's question indicates a point of view that is severely limited by his refusal to acknowledge good science that is not endorsed by the likes of Carl Sagan.

And I think your suspicion is misplaced. This is the first time I read anything written by Dr.F himself and I was a little shocked by the absence of "good science". You don't need an endorsement from Sagan or even Fleischman to experience thermal radiation. Do you have a fireplace? I hope you enjoy it. In absence of that, try to experiment with your stove, and to see how little physics insight Dr.F has.

As to the rest of the paper, it's basically waving hands and making unsubstantiated conjectures. His constant appeals to "QED paradigm", without supplying a single line of any equation or formula, is a sign of desperation. He appears to consider QED as some kind of magic that will validate what he so desperately believes in. I doubt, by the way, that he has done many (if any at all) problems in QED. Which means he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. The only place I've seen the term "QED paradigm" is his paper and a few of cold fusion sites (plus an overlapping acronym that means something completely different, in theory of communications). Speaking of scales of the phenomena, with the exception of inner electron shells of heavy elements, there is no relativistic phenomena in chemistry hence there is not even any need for a relativistic theory. And for Dr. F, the QED becomes a fig leaf, nothing more.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is the first time I read anything written by Dr.F himself and I was a little shocked by the absence of "good science".

You mean mainstream dogma. You mean seeing things the way you, the BS, the person with "no peer on this thread" sees it. The one who is here only for entertainment on this "garbage" thread.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is the first time I read anything written by Dr.F himself and I was a little shocked by the absence of "good science".

You mean mainstream dogma. You mean seeing things the way you, the BS, the person with "no peer on this thread" sees it. The one who is here only for entertainment on this "garbage" thread.

No, it's Dr.F who actually appeals to "mainstream dogma", in the hope that it would rescue his silly notions. You see, QED is strictly mainstream.

You didn't tell me about the result of your stove experiment. Does the fact that you feel radiant heat from a fireplace or even incandescent lamp mean that it's due to some dogma? Or is it a plain observable fact? Or you will claim that you feel no heat from the fireplace, just to save face?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So I pulled out my notes from that interview to search for the section about where F&P were living and working as of 2004. Instead of finding that information . . .

I went back and found what I was looking for in Part 2.

Mallove said that F&P moved to France and worked under Japanese auspices for many years, and that they had their work published in Physics Letters A in 1993.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I suspect that Arbitrageur's question indicates a point of view that is severely limited by his refusal to acknowledge good science that is not endorsed by the likes of Carl Sagan.

Sagan had his own opinions on science, sure. But his message wasn't that people should just accept science he believed, rather, it was to gain enough education to be able to think critically yourself, so you can have some basis for determining which of all the things various people tell you are true.

If this thread hasn't done anything else, it has illustrated the need for that type of "think for yourself" skill. You may think that by rejecting mainstream that means you're thinking for yourself. But as far as I can see, you're following a dogmatic point of view yourself, an anti-mainstream view.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is the first time I read anything written by Dr.F himself and I was a little shocked by the absence of "good science". You don't need an endorsement from Sagan or even Fleischman to experience thermal radiation. Do you have a fireplace? I hope you enjoy it. In absence of that, try to experiment with your stove, and to see how little physics insight Dr.F has.

As to the rest of the paper, it's basically waving hands and making unsubstantiated conjectures. His constant appeals to "QED paradigm", without supplying a single line of any equation or formula, is a sign of desperation.

I hadn't read the Fleishmann article before I posted yesterday, but I just read it. I must agree that he does a lot of hand-waving regarding the QED argument.

Regarding his statement about radiation, let me try to paraphrase what I think he's trying to say:

[brownian type motion results in radiation (Maxwell) which would cool the solution to absolute zero, except that doing so violates the second law of thermodynamics...]

at which point he segues into his hand-waving QED argument. The main criticism I'd have of what he says prior to the QED argument, is that seems like an awfully strange way to word it. For example, why would he talk about cooling the solution to absolute zero rather than just reaching thermal equilibrium with the surroundings? I don't understand why he does that. If he was trying to claim what the temperature would decrease to in the vacuum of deep space, first he should have said so, and second, it still wouldn't go to absolute zero since the CMB has a temperature of 2.725 K.

I think there's a clue to his mindset in "Appendix A: Choosing the correct paradigm...."

He points out the difficulty of trying to figure out which one model to select...it seems like a form of "tunnel vision", which may have been one of the points you were trying to make...he doesn't seem to see the big picture. That appendix is somewhat strange and seems to almost be written in a somewhat defensive manner rather than an unbiased, critically thinking manner. But since he had been under constant attack for 10 years by the time he wrote that, I suppose some defensiveness is not unexpected.

On page 150, I posted an article by Bill Ramsay, “Rodin Coil Design,” that appeared in Nexus magazine in 1996.

I see on vortex.com there is posted a 6 page .pdf of a memorandum that was written by a physicist by the name of Oscar K.H. Hsu about Bill Ramsay’s work on the Rodin coil, and about Hsu’s interest in Rodin’s work. It can be found under "Outbound Correspondence (1998) Oscar Hsu and Bill Ramsay, Oscar Hsu - Memorandum 7-23-98 Proposal #2 Free Energy":

. . . In Aerodynamics: Point Energy Creation Physics © 1997 by Marko Rodin, Marko explains that the Toroid Map describes a black hole turning into a white hole. In fact as I believe, that description my be very good. Marko's Toroid Map seems to bear a good resemblance to the spacetime curvature induced in a single Euclidean space by the presence of a rotating black hole/white hole pair as described by general relativity (GR). ii That is the subject of my extract paper, "Rodin's Toroid Map as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge" with the additional caveat that the Einstein-Rosen Bridge carry the additional modification in being terminated at the center into a rotating singularity.

The reasons why I make that comparison are based on similarity. Marko Rodin used expanding and contracting tiles for his number coordinates that is similar to the expanding and contracting spacetme metric (distance between two coordinates) that Einstein used to construct his geometrical model of general relativity. General relativity is itself an inherently geometrical description of gravity, and some of Bill Ramsay's results with Rodin-Ramsay coils indicate a polarization of gravity with the use of Rodin Geometrics. The comparison is irresistible. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

.Marko Rodin used expanding and contracting tiles for his number coordinates that is similar to the expanding and contracting spacetme metric (distance between two coordinates) that Einstein used to construct his geometrical model of general relativity.

Have you seen the Hoberman Expanding Sphere?

Hoberman Expanding Sphere

I wonder if they make that in the shape of a torus?
I noticed that it also expands like the metric expansion of space, and like the tiles on the torus of Rodin's sudoku.

Given this similarity, I don't see how mainstream science can continue to deny Rodin's claim there's a black hole at the center of a Rodin coil.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And your point is?



Such a profound post! You must have a headache after so much thought and analysis!