*FP Cell, Piantelli Cell, E-cat Hyperion. But is this really so? Is PdD and NiH still the same scientific species, or the differences are more important than the similarities?* ** *Is there a real, definitory distinction between static classic LENR and new, dynamic LENR+ as I try to convince my colleagues with no success?* ** One of the important functions that the LENR development team must perform is to classify what type of quantum matter they are using to produce their reaction.
The subatomic particles associated with each type of quantum matter does its own quantum dance. That dance of long range quantum entanglement defines new types of quantum matter. LENR may be defined in terms of one of hundreds of quantum matter types. This type of quantum matter should be defined in the patents associated with the particular type of LENR. (Phys.org)—Forget solid, liquid, and gas: there are in fact more than 500 phases of matter. In a major paper in today's issue of Science, Perimeter Faculty member Xiao-Gang Wen reveals a modern reclassification of all of them. Using modern mathematics, Wen and collaborators reveal a new system which can, at last, successfully classify symmetry-protected phases of matter. Their new classification system will provide insight about these quantum phases of matter, which may in turn increase our ability to design states of matter for use in superconductors or quantum computers. This paper, titled, "Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems," is a revealing look at the intricate and fascinating world of quantum entanglement, and an important step toward a modern reclassification of all phases of matter. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-phases-phase.html#jCp ** On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I consider Abd's initiative (so well described in the > guest editorial: > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/for-future-of-lenr-by-abd-ul-rahman.html > ) > worthy of praise. > I have recently read more papers about how fast the billionaires are > multiplying worldwide so it is a bit surprising to see that I am not a > billionaire who can help this fine initiative and Abd is also not one- this > is a great drawback. And as one well known example shows it, being > supported by a billionaire is a necessaey but not > sufficient condition of success. > Motivating rich supporters or many generous supporters > is not easy especially for cold fusion. > > The strategical part of III is focused on basic research > and mainly on Pd D systems, as far I know Abd's first priority is a > perfect demonstration of the D + D = He > reaction as main source of excess heat- an essential truth > however with a rather limited applicative potential. And it is for people > who will live for many years. > I take the responsibility for my non-conformist idea that > the Pd D system has no technological perspective, no horizon and no > future, ergo it can deliver only purely > scientific values. An alternative is organizing a very serious NiH basic > research and this needs ery good people with very new ideas. If we speak > about basic > and applicative research- how will we characterize Defkalion's mass > spectrometry study? It is science at its best, the first opportunity to see > what happens in the active core. For those who have studied DGT's work > it is clear that a scientific study of any component of > the Hyperion gives not much information- the entire > system is necessary for the desired results. No sale down > possible. A symbiosis of the scientific and the technological is > necessary- engineering is the key. > > An other possible problem of the field- we firmly believe\in its unity; > what happens in the NiH systems HAS to be > very or highly similar to what happens in the original basic > primordial Pd D system. In other words the sci-tech ADN has not changed > much along the main development line > FP Cell, Piantelli Cell, E-cat Hyperion. But is this really so? Is PdD and > NiH still the same scientific species, or the differences are more > important than the similarities? > Is there a real, definitory distinction between static classic LENR and > new, dynamic LENR+ as I try to convince my colleagues with no success? > > Believe it or not, very soon we will be in the paradoxical and anachronic > situation to know more certain things about the most developed HENI than > about the Fleischmann Pons phenomenon- scientifically speaking > and technologically acting. > > I hope my points of view will also contribute, by acceptance or by smart > annihilation of them- to the > bases of the III. > Peter > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good day to all. I am posting this on behalf of Abd Lomax. Hopefully all >> of you, the distinguished and well-informed Vortex-L community, can >> get involved in some small way to help move this >> worthwhile initiative forward. Abd's message speaks for itself. You are >> encouraged to post any suggestions, questions, etc. Thank you for taking >> the time to read and all the best: >> ** >> *"I've been talking for some time about starting an organization to >> identify needed cold fusion research, develop suggested protocols, >> obtain bids or budgets from qualified researchers, and arrange for >> funding from governmental, corporate, or other sources. >> >> This is for *basic research,* not commercial research aimed at a >> product. There is some possible overlap between this initiative, >> which I'm tentatively calling Infusion Institute, Inc, or III, and >> other efforts. From my point of view, however, these other >> initiatives don't address the fundamental science. If successful, >> they will have an impact; for example, the availability of a >> relatively simple and inexpensive demonstration kit, as proposed and >> being investigated by the New Fire people, will transform perceptions >> about cold fusion and will itself lead to breakthroughs, to a >> breakdown of the cascade that rejected cold fusion because it "could >> not be reproduced." However, cold fusion is potentially far too >> important to the future of humanity to rely upon only one approach. >> >> We know that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was confirmed, but the >> lack of coherent coordination among research groups clouded the >> atmosphere and muddied the waters. There are very few exact >> replications. Given the apparent chaotic nature of the FPHE, we could >> only expect statistical replication, which requires a larger data set >> than has been compiled, in order to clearly constitute the >> "extraordinary evidence" that has been expected. Extraodinary >> evidence for cold fusion -- broadly defined -- does already exist, >> but has been buried and hidden in a flood of other data and reports. >> >> The steps forward: >> >> 1. I have started a mailing list to be used to develop coherent >> proposals for basic research, up to and including specification of >> protocols. This list will hopefully engage not only researchers and >> those greatly interested in the field, but also genuine skeptics, >> those willing to encourage research to *answer* basic questions, by >> pointing out deficiencies in existing research, so that research >> protocols may be designed to address whatever might be unclear. The >> subscription address is >> **coldfusioncomm...@**yahoogroups.com**. Subscriptions must be >> approved by a moderator, and we will be encouraging real name >> identification; anonymous subscriptions may be allowed, but only >> through private discussion with a moderator. To request an anonymous >> subscription, write **coldfusionco...@**yahoogroups.com**, or write me. >> >> 2. Infusion Institute, Inc., III, is proposed. This will be a >> nonprofit corporation, with a Board of Trustees that will make >> decisions about activty. I am facilitating this and may be hired by >> the board to support this work, but will not wear two hats. That is, >> I will be on the board, or will be employed by III, or will >> voluntarily support it. This field is far too important for it to be >> controlled by any single individual, including me. III and the Cold >> Fusion Community will be independent, though likely inter-related >> through common membership, and III will be advised by the Cold Fusion >> Community, as well as through its own internal process. >> >> 3. III will review the "work product" of the mailing list and other >> public structures, such as the CMNS mailing list and resources >> developed on Wikiversity, and will identify proposals to be >> supported. It will solicit bids to actually perform the work, and >> thus will create budgets. It will then identify funding sources and >> will make grant requests. While III would accept unrestricted grants, >> particularly for seed money to develop its own operations, the major >> funding may bypass III and go directly to organizations for specific >> activities deemed worthy by the funding agency. III's mission is to >> facilitate and coordinate research, not to control it. >> >> Some research may be done through multiple research groups, >> particularly where there are existing research reports of high >> interest, needing confirmation. At this point, III will likely not be >> funding primary research, because there is a backlog of fundamental >> research that remains unconfirmed or inadequately confirmed. >> >> III is not intended to establish a new research facility, at least >> not initially. Such are arising, and III will generally support and >> assist these efforts. Credible new facilities may, of course, choose >> to bid on research proposals, along with established groups."* >> >> Show trimmed content >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
