Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Here is where Frank Gordon and crew are working now. They are ready to remediate nuclear waste with their foils and they too are working under the radar, given the maturity of their knowledge and trade craft. SPAWAR / DOD says they know how to burn nuclear waste, DOE says that's impossible therefore not real. To admit that nuclear waste can be remediated with co-dep foils is to admit that all their energy clients are wrong. http:// www.globalenergycorporation.net/ Here is some stunning stuff: http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx While there are numerous products possible, GEC is currently focusing on the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion, Fast-Fission Reactor that will use either natural uranium or existing hazardous waste as fuel. This is an amazing claim. Frank Gordon is a reliable scientist. The technology is apparently still not developed, but I think this kind of claim would not be made lightly. I have to wonder if the day has arrived or close to arriving that I need no longer concern myself with cold fusion and can go on to the other things in my queue. Perhaps they finally got around to testing tritium in their protocol, for reasons discussed on p. 29 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf A DT reaction, even if by cold fusion, always produces a neutron. There is only one probably channel. For this reason I have suggested tritium doping of deuterium experiments is an important LENR diagnostic technique. I note there is no mention of cold fusion. This leads me to believe it is more likely the neutron source may be a DT neutron tube. For some background see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator Here is some background on neutron tubes from a now defunct web site: http://www.mfphysics.com/About%20NG.htm - About MF Physics Neutron Generators Neutron Sources Neutrons may be produced using a number of techniques including isotopic sources, small deuterium-tritium neutron generators, and large accelerators. Isotopic neutron sources produce continuous fluxes of neutrons. The most common isotopic source our neutrons is from spontaneous fission of Californium-252 (252Cf). The average energy of neutrons from 252Cf is 2.3 MeV. The half life is 2.6 years. Neutrons may also be produced by mixing an isotope which emits a particle with beryllium-9. Neutrons are produced by the (a, n) reaction with beryllium. Common (a,n) sources are: 239Pu with 9Be, 226Ra with 9Be, and 241Am with 9Be Isotopic neutron sources have the advantage having a long useful life and producing a relatively constant flux of neutrons. They may also be relatively inexpensive for low flux (108 neutrons per second) sources. However, isotopic sources have several disadvantages. The neutron output can not be turned off, requiring that they be contained within bulky shielding at all times. Isotopic neutron sources can not be pulsed and the energy spectrum of the emitted neutrons is broad and peaks at energies below the threshold for some important reactions. Neutron Generators Small neutron generators using the deuterium (2H) - tritium (3H) reaction are the most common accelerator based (as opposed to isotopic) neutron sources. Neutrons are produced by creating deuterium ions and accelerating these ions into a tritium or deuterium target. The D-D reaction is used only in special circumstances because the neutron yield from the D-T reaction is ~100 times higher. D + T¨ n + 4He En = 14.2 MeV D + D¨ n + 3He En = 2.5 MeV Yield(D,T) ~ 100 x Yield(D,D) Neutrons produced from the D-T reaction are emitted isotropically (uniformly in all directions) from the target. Neutron emission from the D-D reaction is slightly peaked in the forward (along the axis of the ion beam) direction. In both cases, the He nucleus (a particle) is emitted in the exact opposite direction of the neutron. Most small d-t accelerators are sealed tube neutron generators. The ion source, ion optics and the accelerator target are enclosed in within a vacuum tight enclosure. High voltage insulation between the ion optical elements of the tube is provided by either glass or ceramic insulators. The neutron tube is, in turn, enclosed in a metal housing, the accelerator head, which is filled with an dielectric media to insulate the high voltage elements of the tube from the laboratory surroundings. The accelerator and ion source high voltages are provided by external power supplies. The control console allows the operator to adjust the operating parameters of the neutron tube. The power supplies are normally located within 10-30 feet of the accelerator head. The Control Console may be located as far as 50-100 feet from the accelerator head. The basic features of a sealed neutron tube
[Vo]:NASA and LENR research
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. New slide show: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf
Re:[Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
I've been lurking here for a couple of months now and have learned a great deal from all the comments. But reading this really saddened me. I truly hope that one day these so called scientists that refuse to admit there is something going on with CF or LENR end up being discredited and ripped apart by the media for only looking out for their own interests and not for the better of science. What goes round must come round. I wonder what this will do for Rossi if, as is speculated, SPAWAR was his secret customer?
Re: [Vo]:Kick starter for funding?
Am 18.12.2011 05:17, schrieb Sean True: If Dr. Miley is in need of low thousands of dollars to get to a breakthrough, is there a possibility of using kickstarter.com to raise the money? I'd kick in a thousand dollar pledge if Jed said it would get the good doctor over the hump. Miley is closely working together with CETI ( Clean Energy Technologies, Incorporated) and has without doubt created a lot of free advertisement for them. I think CETI or their investors should give him the money, because these will also get the results, and if true, then they will all get very, very rich. Peter
[Vo]:unsubscribe
unsubsribe -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
snip I wonder what this will do for Rossi if, as is speculated, SPAWAR was his secret customer? /snip If Rossi were the customer and it worked, would they not be expanding the program. This suggests that nothing has happened. My papers also have fallen on mostly deaf ears. Personalty I have moved away from cold fusion and energy research. If I find some free time I will study Spanish or do something else. I would not want to wind up on my death bed and realize then that I had spent my entire life chasing a windmill. Without a dramatic new source energy, I see nothing but a continuing decline of our industrialized western society. No jobs, no marriages, no reason to study hard, and a virtual only life. I hope Rossi does it, I have been been burnt out for a long time. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Without a dramatic new source energy, I see nothing but a continuing decline of our industrialized western society. No jobs, no marriages, no reason to study hard, and a virtual only life. I hope Rossi does it, I have been been burnt out for a long time. Frank Z Frank! As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of (1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Kick starter for funding?
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Miley is closely working together with CETI ( Clean Energy Technologies, Incorporated) and has without doubt created a lot of free advertisement for them. This company has been defunct for many years. It was owned by the late James Patterson. - Jed
[Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works as far as I know. It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money. (I'll take it!) I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe. He can assist. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form: http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/ T
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On 2011-12-18 17:18, Terry Blanton wrote: It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form: http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/ This might actually be a good idea. By the way, until Krivit leaked that email from the ISCMNS mailing list, I've never heard of this GameChanger program by Shell. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? 2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works as far as I know. It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money. (I'll take it!) I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe. He can assist. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:09 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. Miley was pushing this company during his Oct talk. http://www.cfeis.com/ I was under the impression that he was involved in this company and was trying to develop a commercial product. If this is true then I'm sure you can deliver money to him through this company. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: With respect as I in no way mean to make this statement personal: What a load of self service CRAP. Are you blind as well as mentally impaired? That's not personal? If I said something like that about someone here, everyone would be talking about expelling me from the email list. Want respect? Get Rossi to agree to a proper test of an E-cat module (who cares about silly and unnecessary large collections of them under the misleading name of plants?). Better yet, get Rossi to name a single, credible and independent customer who can be interviewed and whose test results can be examined. It is absurd to say that Murray, Cude and I are against cold fusion/LENR. Nothing would please (and amuse) us more than if it worked robustly the way Rossi and Defkalion claim. So stop insulting people and start finding proof that Rossi has something -- not scattered bits of inconclusive evidence and improperly performed demonstrations but clear independent tests that prove it works. First, try to find a single solitary person or company other than someone connected to Rossi or some anonymous customer, who actually has a device and can talk about it.
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Going through my notes again . . . I should say there is still some hope at SPAWAR that after-hours or weekend research may be allowed. They are still negotiating, so let us not raise a big stink about this. No point in riling up the opposition more than usual. They are discouraged. As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers. The skeptics should feel free to keep writing to authorities. Mary Yugo should continue to respond to any mass media article in the comment section with unfounded, vile allegations of fraud and guilt by association, written under a a pen name. It is only words, and words have no consequences. You cannot make things worse than you already have. Maintain your unshakable conviction that anything you disagree with, you do not understand, or you have not bothered to read must be pathological science or fraud. We get it. Research you don't like must not be allowed. Ever. Even on weekends, done by 85-year-old professors. You want stasis and the end of science, and that is what you will get. As Martin Fleischmann said: People do not want progress. It makes them uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers. What difference does any of that make? Rossi is churning out megawatts of e-cats and Defkalion is preparing to sell their well-engineered devices. Customers will talk, they will show off their new toys, they will contact the highest officials. China will steal the technology and heat yurts in Tibet and sell e-cats to Sears. The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's demos have proven cold fusion is real. Haven't they?
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
This is kind of ironic.. Jed behaves as those Rossi's tests were faked and CF is still on shoe strings... 2011/12/18 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers. What difference does any of that make? Rossi is churning out megawatts of e-cats and Defkalion is preparing to sell their well-engineered devices. Customers will talk, they will show off their new toys, they will contact the highest officials. China will steal the technology and heat yurts in Tibet and sell e-cats to Sears. The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's demos have proven cold fusion is real. Haven't they? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I am sorry to report that the authorities have finally closed down cold fusion research at SAPWAR. After Frank Gordon left, the project was on life support. Recent reports on Fox News and elsewhere mentioned it, bringing about the inevitable coup de grace. Like most cold fusion projects, this was a shoestring or bootlegged operation. It was done by retired researchers such as Szpak, and others working nights and weekends. The equipment was scavenged or bought by private individuals. But, as we all know, people opposed to cold fusion will not tolerate any project, even if it costs essentially nothing. Academic freedom means nothing to them. It never occurs to them they might be wrong, because -- Like Park and Yugo -- they have read nothing and they know nothing. They make no distinction between cold fusion and a perpetual motion machines or water memory. Any research they disagree with *must not be allowed*, period. Nonsense. I have told you many times by private email and in public postings that I favor funding for cold fusion/LENR research. I'd like to see much more of it but I'd like to see it done better, with more use of gradient layer boundary calorimeters such as those that were made by Thermonetics. Of course I make a distinction between perpetual motion and water memory and cold fusion. The problem is that some cold fusion advocates degrade their credibility by pushing other nonsense like homeopathy and using water for fuel or magnetic motors that require no energy input. They support fools and crooks like Bedini, Dennis Lee, Thane and many others. Whenever cold fusion appears in the mass media I shudder, because I know it will trigger a backlash. Cold fusion researchers keep a low profile for a good reason. They know perfectly well that when some nitwit such as Krivit reveals there may be a source of funding, or a project being organized, that will trigger opposition. Robert Park will pull strings. Others will organize letter-writing campaigns. Mary Yugo will publish unfounded accusations of fraud and guilt by association. There is nothing unfounded about the disaster and high costs to Italy that came from Rossi's Petroldragon fiasco. There is no question that Rossi lied to and cheated the DOD when he proposed and could not demonstrate the construction of efficient thermoelectric devices. There is no question and even you agree that Rossi has resisted every opportunity for independent testing, even at no risk to his secrecy. He has also resisted all suggestions to improve his existing demos to where they could become less controversial-- again without risk or high cost or long delays.I have not accused Rossi of fraud. I have said and shown that his operation is very similar to those of Steorn, Sniffex, Carl Tilley and Dennis Lee (and others). And yes, those are frauds and scams. The people in charge of the Navy and the DoE know nothing about cold fusion, and they do not care about it. The interesting thing about cold fusion is that you can test a robust example of it without in any way understanding the mechanism. And almost everyone cares about a cheap and inexhaustible source of power. That's why all the scams out there like the ones I already mentioned and those that are like Bedini's have long lives. It's why Sterling Allan and Craig Brown and Paul Story can continue to run web sites that feature such nonsense as cars that run on water, overunity magnetic motors that require no energy, and even ideas everyone finds ridiculous such as that Obama went to Mars or that Iran captures US drones with flying saucers. Plenty of people in charge believe such things and much money is wasted on scams. The successor to the Sniffex one caused expenditure of almost $100 million dollars in Iraq, Thailand and even Afghanistan before it was (partly) shut down after costing perhaps hundreds of lives as well. Military leaders in several countries promoted the purchase of the ineffective, improperly tested and unproven explosive detector dowsing rod devices for as much as $80,000 per copy! You can convince some people of almost anything. Dowsing rod explosive detector scams still go on! Fortunately, Rossi and Defkalion are privately funded and immune to interference. Rossi is well aware of how academic politics work in the U.S. That is one of the reasons he has not made much of an effort to work with universities and national labs. Even if they get positive results, it will be reported as a failure and fraud. No it won't-- it can't. Look at NyTeknik's thorough if somewhat misguided reporting. Look at the articles about Rossi from Forbes and other main line news sources. Only AP held back and that's because Rossi invited them to a silly dog and pony show in which they were not allowed to see and verify and of the data being taken. Rossi has not made ANY effort to
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's demos have proven cold fusion is real. Fleischmann, Will and McKubre proved cold fusion is real in 1990. That did not convince many people. It remains to be seen whether Rossi's demonstrations and sales will convince the wider world. Rossi has often botched opportunities and made things difficult for himself. Perhaps he will succeed, but it has not happened yet. So far every battle has been lost. Defkalion has not yet begun to fight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Going through my notes again . . . I should say there is still some hope at SPAWAR that after-hours or weekend research may be allowed. They are still negotiating, so let us not raise a big stink about this. No point in riling up the opposition more than usual. They are discouraged. As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers. The skeptics should feel free to keep writing to authorities. Mary Yugo should continue to respond to any mass media article in the comment section with unfounded, vile allegations of fraud and guilt by association, written under a a pen name. It is only words, and words have no consequences. In my public responses to overly optimistic and sometimes highly misleading main line news media reports and claims, I simply pointed out that Rossi had a checkered and controversial past which included two previous high profile technology failures followed by multiple legal charges and arrests. I also pointed out that he failed to get independent tests and failed to follow appropriate and clever suggestions for improving his own tests. I noted that he did not run long enough or make use of control/blank tests. That is simply the truth. It is not unfounded, vile allegations of fraud. I also noted that Rossi's modus operandi is in virtually EVERY WAY analogous to some recent flagrant scams involving investor (not customer) fraud. That's not guilt by association -- as far as I know, Rossi is not associated with any of the people I mentioned. It's an objective, independent and accurate set of observations -- something Rossi and other cold fusion proponents should try sometime.
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
That is a great idea. I'm leaving too. Correa was right. The Vortex list does not live up to its ideals. Harry On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Dusty Bradshaw d_bra...@bellsouth.netwrote: unsubsribe -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Nonsense. I have told you many times by private email and in public postings that I favor funding for cold fusion/LENR research. You say that, and I think you are sincere. But your actions prove you are deceiving yourself. You despise cold fusion. You are working tirelessly to prevent funding and destroy the field. Whenever it is mentioned in the mass media, you go to the comment section and fill it with unfounded, ignorant blather, technical mistakes about papers you have not read, guilt by associations, and baseless accusations of fraud. You and hundreds of others like you poison the well and destroy people's lives and careers with your reckless accusations. You think it is all a game, and words have no consequences. You pretend this does not matter. Ask yourself: Have you ever once, in the mass media, mentioned that there is quality work out there, or I favor funding for cold fusion? You say it here, to this audience. Have you written at Time magazine, or Fox News? I doubt it. You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment, filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it was their fault. I'd like to see much more of it but I'd like to see it done better, with more use of gradient layer boundary calorimeters such as those that were made by Thermonetics. In other words, you want people to things your way, or the highway. To hell you would like to see this. You want this research ended. You think it is fraud and pathology. You read nothing, you know nothing, and yet yesterday you dismissed Pam Boss's work as a failure, based on EarthTech. You have never seen an experiment that meets your high standards, and you never will. Frankly, you should at least have the decency to use your real name, and say what you really believe, the way Robert Park does. I prefer him to you for the reasons Abraham Lincoln described in 1855: When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
It remains to be seen whether Rossi's demonstrations and sales will convince the wider world. How can they not? The October 28 customer has had the 50 e-cats for 6 weeks. I can hear the dialogue now: So how's it going with the e-cats, Manny? The sons-of-guns have been running for six weeks, Bob, and no sign of slowing down! It's the damndest thing Any luck on reverse engineering the core? Hell, yes! In fact, we are building them now. Our insider at Defkalion has given us the plans for their enhanced geometry, so that the reaction will be more controllable. Can we beat Rossi to the punch with a patent? I think so; the guy is a genius, but he tends to run off in all directions at once. Meanwhile, Chinese spies disguised as trustworthy visiting japanese researchers have been photographing the plans with a camera built into their horn-rimmed glasses and emailing them back to Beijing, where
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
please, continue :) 2011/12/18 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com It remains to be seen whether Rossi's demonstrations and sales will convince the wider world. How can they not? The October 28 customer has had the 50 e-cats for 6 weeks. I can hear the dialogue now: So how's it going with the e-cats, Manny? The sons-of-guns have been running for six weeks, Bob, and no sign of slowing down! It's the damndest thing Any luck on reverse engineering the core? Hell, yes! In fact, we are building them now. Our insider at Defkalion has given us the plans for their enhanced geometry, so that the reaction will be more controllable. Can we beat Rossi to the punch with a patent? I think so; the guy is a genius, but he tends to run off in all directions at once. Meanwhile, Chinese spies disguised as trustworthy visiting japanese researchers have been photographing the plans with a camera built into their horn-rimmed glasses and emailing them back to Beijing, where -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment, filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it was their fault.SNIP Yikes!
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
Back to SPAWAR, why should we mix the point of view- killing of SPAWAR was the problem. Rossi is an entirely different problem When SPAWR started I was very busy working as a journalist, plus I could not feel much enthusiasm for it because it was not about energy. I have not understood its philosophy. In our (my OLTCHIM lab)practice of Project Management the very first question for any project was ; *What will it give us in case it is a perfect success?* Yes, what could give us a triumphant SPAWAR? My impression is that it had generated endless discussions about a poor man's method of measurement and not more.Was it really killed or has it comited a slow suicide? I humbly recognize thta I am not well informed in this case Peter On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment, filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it was their fault.SNIP Yikes! -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
THE RIDDLE AND POSSIBLE SOLUTION Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29, 58CO27, and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the specific problem byproducts problem is manifest if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances: 1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p* 2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically disallowed. Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino. The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible reactions: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843] Ni28 + 2 p* --- 2 1H1 + 0 MeV THE ZERO POINT ENERGY FUELED CASES Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at the same time. The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy. This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result in detectible brehmstrahlung. This energy is in addition to the mass change energy listed above. The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy may also be obtained from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of deflated protons, without the aid of a lattice nucleus. This is of the form: p* + P* -- 2 1H1 However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than from a large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped when the protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be expected from the ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur: p + p* -- D + e+ v + 0.42 MeV These are followed immediately by: e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. COMPARISON WITH PURELY STRONG REACTIONS The following represent energetically feasible initial strong reactions based on deflation fusion theory: Compare to 18.822 MeV: 58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV] 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV] Compare to: 16.852 MeV: 60Ni28 + p* -- 61Cu29 # + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV] 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Zn30 # + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV] Compare to: 9.814 MeV 61Ni28 + p* -- 58Co27 # + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV] 61Ni28 + p* -- 62Cu29 # + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Ni28 # + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Cu29 # + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV] 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Zn30 # + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV] Compare to: 14.931 Mev 62Ni28 + p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV] Compare to: 16.378 MeV 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV] * Note - reaction products marked with * above are radioactive. In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions exceed those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive isotopes. This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an energy only basis. The mechanism that enforces the rule is more difficult to understand. Understanding the mechanism requires understanding the initial energy deficit due to the trapped electron. This electron trapping energy deficit is shown in brackets above. The deficit shown is a net of the Coulomb trapping energy less the nuclear reaction energy. This deficit provides a limit to how far an energetically ejected electron can travel out of the coulomb well before being pulled back. If an electron is in the nucleus at the site of the initial reaction, then a large part of the energy that normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into ejecting the trapped electron. However, given that
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
I don't know. The hotter the better the reaction. The hotter the more hydrogen is driven out and the worse the reaction. If I knew I would do it. Frank Frank! As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of (1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect? Craig Haynie Manchester, NH
Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research
At 12:31 PM 12/18/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: I also noted that Rossi's modus operandi is in virtually EVERY WAY analogous to some recent flagrant scams involving investor (not customer) fraud. That's not guilt by association -- as far as I know, Rossi is not associated with any of the people I mentioned. It's an objective, independent and accurate set of observations -- something Rossi and other cold fusion proponents should try sometime. I have not read everything Mary has written here, but from what I've seen, almost all of her criticism has been directed at some very obvious problems with the Rossi claims. Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions from what you know. Mary, my big concern, expressed here and privately to LENR researchers, was that lack of caution with regard to Rossi's claims could damage the field by association. I'm still concerned about that. If Rossi's claims prove to be founded, it's all over, LENR is established, though the Rossi approach obviously would involve a different mechanism than those normally proposed for other LENR of the Pons-Fleischmann type. There has been sober review of LENR claims, and, over the last five years or so, the extreme skeptical position (Impossible!) has totally disappeared from peer-reviewed literature in relevant fields. The physicists have normally asserted a kind of primacy here, but cold fusion is a cross-disciplinary field, since the techniques involve chemistry and techniques familiar to chemists, such as electrolysis and reaction calorimetry. The status has long been that the majority opinion among physicists has been this cannot be nuclear physics, and the predominant position among chemists, especially electrochemists, has been this cannot be chemistry. I was aware of the flap in 1989, and had assumed, from what ensued, that it was all a mistake, until quite recently I had occasion to review the literature. It wasn't a mistake, the majority opinion among experts, my estimate, is now that there is anomalous heat being generated. It's not artifact, or if it is, it is one very unusual and very unexpected artifact, one that can baffle experts in calorimetry. In 1989, the DoE review concluded that more research was needed. That, however, was probably a political compromise. In 2004, it was the unanimous opinion of the reviewers. Politics, however, has still effectively continued to suppress research. Those reviews have been presented by skeptics as having rejected cold fusion. That's not the case, but it takes a careful study of the reports, which are available, to see this. What's clear, though, is the recommendation for research. That isn't done for a field that is clearly bogus. I've studied the 2004 report, and have concluded that the review paper failed to adequately communicate the primary evidence that, not only are nuclear reactions taking place, but the ash is helium. That paper was written by researchers who wrote it in academic fashion, not as polemic. They did present most of the evidence for the heat/helium correlation, but it was confused by a confusing appendix, and at least one reviewer and the bureaucrat who summarized the reviews, both of them, radically misinterpreted the appendix, turning what was very strong evidence for heat helium, into the opposite, anti-correlation. Huizenga, the co-chair of the first DoE review in 1989, called Cold fusion The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, as the title of his book. He was right. It's an amazing story of the breakdown of scientific protocols and traditions. It is as if polywater and N-rays had been rejected only on theoretical grounds, without ever identifying the artifacts behind those erroneous claims. There is anomalous heat, and helium is being generated correlated with that heat. There are disagreements over the heat/helium ratio, and the measurement is difficult, but it's been quite adequately confirmed to establish the correlation within about a factor of two of the value expected from deuterium fusion. LENR researchers are more inclined than other scientists to accept Rossi's claims because they know that LENR is generally possible. However, as I pointed out, possible does not establish probable, and there have been lots of red herrings and blind alleys in LENR research. Indeed, if Rossi is a scammer, we would not be surprised to see him taking advantage of a knowledge of possibility. It's possible that I have a piece of paper purporting to be a deed to the land on which the Brooklyn Bridge sits, eh? I'm offering it for cheap because I need some cash. That's not only possible, it's true! At least about the cash!
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Wow that's a pretty bleak and discouraging assessment Jed, you must be tremendously frustrated. I am just thankful that I am such a LENR neophyte. Fingers crossed it appears the genie is now out of the bottle and someone (Celani, Miley, Piantelli, Arata, McKubre, Ahern, Rossi, Brillouin, Dekaflion ) will do an unimpeachable demo in the next few months (as Rossi could have done if he cared, his fat-cat demos were a step backwards). I think the breakthrough demo is now most likely to come from one of the older hands as they seem to care more for the science than the pursuit of financial gain, the only explanation I can see for the other researchers in the game going into stealth mode of late. A well executed demo will change everything, and should then give you license to go around for the rest of your life wearing an I told you so t-shirt. On 18 December 2011 17:22, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional comments, into this paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I wrote: Even Bockris was nearly fired. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJaccountabi.pdf Some outlandish research, but someone's gotta try it: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf p. 19, quote: With the loss of the ONR funding, management at China Lake dictated that no further work on the F-P effect was to be done. Dr. Johnson moved on to a position in Idaho, and Dr. Miles was assigned by the Head of the Chemistry Department at China Lake (Dr. Robin A. Nissan) to report to the stockroom clerk for the inventory of chemicals [24]. No further studies of the F-P effect were made at China Lake after 1995. There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out, there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I agree with your analysis. stupidity, selfishness, greed, conformism, is the main result of applying Occam razor 2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out, there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was everywhere.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. The opposite approach is justified. As I wrote on page 36 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational experimental approach which is team directed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers in the field of LENR? Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions. Would that make sense? mic 2011/12/18 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. The opposite approach is justified. As I wrote on page 36 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational experimental approach which is team directed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded between 1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't get any worse. I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout from Rossi being revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done more good than harm. Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the field was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It was unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who cares if they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original was just noise. There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be some fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing positive data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up a dead skunk at a picnic. People do not flock to your side to congratulate you. I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one of the authors said to me -- I want to keep my job. Very reasonable. People who have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr themselves to the cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are sure to lose, and you will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I have no great moral courage. If I were an academic researcher, dependent on the good well of the establishment, there would be no LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am not a member of that congregation. It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a leader in supporting and promoting LENR and I have position of authority. That's absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of recommendation from me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be applying for a job at Republican National Committee with a letter of recommendation from David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager). - Jed
[Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html) Rule 2 is found here: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list It is rather like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion: 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news reports, new papers, announcements, etc. 2. Experiment reports 3. Theory and theory papers 4. Related history of the field The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is needed. We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else feel the same? Suggestions or comments are requested. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. On 12/19/2011 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded between 1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't get any worse. I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout from Rossi being revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done more good than harm. Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the field was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It was unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who cares if they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original was just noise. There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be some fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing positive data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up a dead skunk at a picnic. People do not flock to your side to congratulate you. I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one of the authors said to me -- I want to keep my job. Very reasonable. People who have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr themselves to the cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are sure to lose, and you will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I have no great moral courage. If I were an academic researcher, dependent on the good well of the establishment, there would be no LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am not a member of that congregation. It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a leader in supporting and promoting LENR and I have position of authority. That's absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of recommendation from me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be applying for a job at Republican National Committee with a letter of recommendation from David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager). - Jed
[Vo]:Mysterious white web found growing on nuclear waste
http://io9.com/5868883/mysterious-white-webs-found-growing-on-nuclear-waste
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers in the field of LENR? Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions. Would that make sense? mic I think this is a good idea. The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. If not sufficient for success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success. I think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
Horace we are discussing a technology and a device which may totally alter the future pathway of the human race, how this technology has been suppressed and is still being attempted to be suppressed on this forum by those that make silly claims like there are no working LENR devices in any laboratory anywhere and there are no peer reviewed LENR papers despite considerable peer reviewed papers and clear statements by NASA, SPAWAR and other researchers to the contrary. I would suggest this would be expected to increase the volume of posts. How are the donations made? On 12/19/2011 9:58 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html) Rule 2 is found here: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list It is rather like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion: 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news reports, new papers, announcements, etc. 2. Experiment reports 3. Theory and theory papers 4. Related history of the field The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is needed. We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else feel the same? Suggestions or comments are requested. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
Well worded and couldn't agree more. On Dec 18, 2011 6:29 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation. The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B. The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the posting rate greatly expanded. Many of the posts are now more appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list. The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism. We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.**html http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly becoming a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real were constantly attacked by those who believe we must reject cold fusion because there is little evidence for it. And vice versa. Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/**wclose.htmlhttp://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html ) Rule 2 is found here: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/**weird/wvort.html#ruleshttp://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules 2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is banned. Pathological Skepticism is banned (see the link.) The tone here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate. Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test crazy claims rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board! The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list It is rather like: what is pornography? You know it when you see it. Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion: 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news reports, new papers, announcements, etc. 2. Experiment reports 3. Theory and theory papers 4. Related history of the field The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of technical content, and virulent. The problem is throwing out the bath water and not the baby. What is needed is common sense and self restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is needed. We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of what is posted, if that. I think something should be done. Anyone else feel the same? Suggestions or comments are requested. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. If?!? What do you mean if? It is already as suppressed as anything can be! There are not more than a 6 or 8 researchers in the U.S., and they are all being paid for from private money or DARPA. DARPA does not answer to the DoE. If it did, there would not be a penny from Uncle Sam. Okay, there may be a few others keeping a low profile. Don't ask me. By the way, there has been a discussion here about of CMNS and the Beardsworth letter. I would like to address that -- I am the polar opposite of Steve Krivit. I *never* upload a paper without permission. I never discuss a paper without permission. I have edited or translated many that I never discuss. I never ask nosy questions or try to dig up information on people who ask to be left alone. I supply information. I do not want to hear secrets. If someone asks me to delete a paper or information sent previously, I delete it at once, no questions asked. Krivit kept the letter from Beardsworth of Royal Dutch Shell, even though Beardsworth asked him to remove it: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/ If Beardsworth had sent me that, I would probably have copied it here without thinking about it. I would assume he wants me to disseminate it, to find applicants. Why else would he send it to me? I might put it in the News section at LENR-CANR.org. If Beardsworth were then to contact me and said that was confidential I would be acutely embarrassed. I would apologize. I never intend to make things public that the author wants to keep secret. That is why I am not a member of CMNS. (Krivit is not a member either. Someone leaks to him, I suppose.) I have no objection to those people at CMNS carrying on confidential discussions. None! There was some confusion about that. People thought I left the place in hissy fit because I oppose secrecy. Secrecy is great. Ducky. But I personally do not want to hear any technical secrets about cold fusion. I do not wish to hear anything you would not say at an ICCF conference. I am happy to hear other secrets: personal, business, financial, sexual . . . bring it on! *Tell me all you know, dahling.* Just nothing technical relating to cold fusion. Arthur Clarke told me that was his policy. I liked it, so I adapted it. I want no adversarial relationship with anyone in this field. I have never turned down a submission to LENR-CANR because I disagreed with the content. It is a library, not a journal. I have turned down ~5 submissions, because they were off-topic, handwritten, or never published elsewhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mysterious white web found growing on nuclear waste
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, MJ wrote: http://io9.com/5868883/mysterious-white-webs-found-growing-on- nuclear-waste This reminds me of a weak Ni sulfate solution codeposition on aluminum electrodes CF experiment I did years ago. Ni filaments formed in solution - massive amounts, that looked like cob webs. When a filament path formed between anode and cathode, a bright flash disintegrated the filament. It was like a miniature lightning bolt. The really weird thing about it was this happened at a fast rate, yet it was completely silent. It was like a storm in a beaker. There was no cavitation sound. There was no clear indication of excess heat, so I didn't follow up on it. That was an experiment that should have been followed up on for heavy element transmutation. I don't have the tools available for that. It is remotely possible the radiation, charged particle flux through the fuel rod cladding, or thermal stress, induces nickel or tin metal whiskers to grow to arbitrary lengths. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy) This article has some great photos of tin whiskers: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1742110show=html Google (tin whiskers). Just wild speculation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised. Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should be small, some large. Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing. Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented research and development of renewable energy in general: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about what kinds of considerations need to be made. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: [snip] How are the donations made? http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html Being an old fogey I snail mail mine to: William J. Beaty 6632 Corson Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 206-543-6195 USA I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace, Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician were able to understand it and apply it... mic 2011/12/19 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised. Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should be small, some large. Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing. Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented research and development of renewable energy in general: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about what kinds of considerations need to be made. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is. For the oversears of us would be nice to have it... mic
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
Hey,Bill, Do you have a Paypal account? It's time for Vorts to ante up. T On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is. For the oversears of us would be nice to have it... mic
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
From Jed ... Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. Thanks for posting it, Jed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Wow! Can't we start an open source development of CF? 2011/12/18 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net From Jed ... Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. Thanks for posting it, Jed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
One way to remember their achievement would be to rename LENR to the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE). ALL FPE devices should include it in their name. Leonardo's E-Cat then becomes the Leonardo FPE E-Cat device. Defkalion's Hyperion then becomes the Defkalion FPE Hyperion device. Jed's web site would become FPE.CANR.org. Easy to redirect hits using old links. LENR is not correct as we really don't have a solid theory. However FPE does describe the effect and honours the men and their contribution. So what do you think Jed? Move away from LENR as Cold Fusion was moved away from. FPE describes the effect we all know, honours Fleischmann and Pons, removes Nuclear (as we know it) and raises the middle finger to those who are working to put out the FPE flame. While they may never get the Noble they deserve, at least we can ensure the effect they discovered, lives on with their name given to the effect. I like the Fleischmann and Ponds Effect. Anyone else like it? On 12/19/2011 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed
[Vo]:Fleischmann Pons Effect replication instructions, including the use of a RFG!
Seems Edmund Storms also liked to use the FPE term. Here he describes, almost blow by blow how to replicated the FPE effect. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf Note on page 9. point 7d he states: Inductively couple an RF frequency of 81.9 MHz to the cell through a surrounding coil. Power levels below 30 mW have been found to work well but values up to 1 W can be used. If excess energy is to be produced, it will appear immediately.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle
On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional comments, into this paper: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf As typical for me, I continue to find and correct typos. Somehow I submitted a back level version. Thank you for your patience. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Private information about Rossi was the Ampernergo tests described by McKubre
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions from what you know. Mainly what I know was revealed by McKubre in his recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See where it says AmpEnerco Run I These were independent tests done by Ampenergo before they made an agreement with Rossi. Various experts participated, including someone McKubre knows well. He trusts his expert. I know some of those people too, and I trust them. That is not to suggest that I can judge calorimetry as well as McKubre can! Far from it. But it isn't hard to judge these results. These tests were similar to the public tests conducted by Rossi, only they were independent, with someone else's instruments. Somewhat better instruments, proper computers and so on, but basically the same sort of HVAC test procedures. Okay, ask yourself this. Suppose you know that tests similar the 18-hour February test and the October self-sustaining tests were done, with instruments supplied and operated by someone you knew to be an expert, and a trustworthy person. Would that convince you? If the answer is yes, you can see why McKubre and I are pretty confident this result is real. On the other hand, if the HVAC-style testing does not satisfy you, then you will not be convinced. Mary Yugo has said she demands a blank run. As far as I know they did not do one. I think she wants to see a Seebeck calorimeter. I am sure they did not use that. So she would not be satisfied by these tests. That's all there is to it. I have no knowledge of Rossi's personal business. For all I know he might be robbing dozens of investors. I do not think he is. I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing, no evidence, and frankly I could not care less if he is robbing people. I am sure his claims are real. That does not preclude the possibility that he is defrauding people; it would mean he is defrauding them with a genuine cold fusion reactor. Not my problem. Here is a key issue. Rossi's personality is an open book thanks to his website. That is unique to the 21st century. People who dismiss him because of his personality should think about that. Suppose in 1879 Edison had a kept an Internet blog while he invented the incandescent light. Suppose everyone could follow along with his trials and tribulations and his frequent crazy ideas. Now, 140 years later, you can read detailed biographies of him. You can read the lab notebooks. You can see why some of his investors lost their nerve and sold out for pennies on the dollar as he floundered around spending rivers of money, changing the design radically, apparently getting nowhere. In my opinion, his comments were no less extreme than Rossi's; his behavior no less erratic. That is true of many other famous inventors. It is also true of many ordinary programmers, chemists and others doing creative work that is worthy, difficult, but never becomes famous. It is true of some top notch gourmet chefs; a guy I know who can climb and cut down just about any tree with minimal equipment but frightful risk; and many farmers and fishermen in Yamaguchi. People who do extraordinary, creative, or dangerous things are sometimes odd. If they were not odd, they would do these things. In the past, we did not know how odd people such as Edison were until long after they became rich famous, when all their sins were forgiven. Now, with Rossi, we learn of it in real time. My guess is that people such as Mary Yugo cannot look past Rossi's personality because they have not read many biographies, diaries and personal papers left by famous people. They have not met a broad range of people from other cultures, or eccentric people, or downright crazy people. I have. I mean that literally. I grew up encountering people who were diagnosed with mental illness, in the era before effective psychotropic drugs. You can read about them here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_psychiatric_halfway_house.html?id=8wsEAQAAIAAJ (The authors are my mother and my aunt.) In other words, I am used to discounting personality quirks, and looking at the content of the work. That is not an easy thing to do. It is not always a wise thing to do. It just happens I am good at it, because I have had a lot of practice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: Horace, Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician were able to understand it and apply it... mic Yes it would have been nice. I think Hillary Clinton had some similar plans , but was not elected. She certainly understood the issues I think. It would have worked far better than estimated, due to the extremely cheap solar cells now on the market. The fund would have made a lot of money, and would have completely removed itself from the political vagaries of annual national budget cycles. This could be an advantage to a private fund, provided the fund has a mechanism other than donations, to self sustain through partial vested financial interest in patents, stock, etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. ANYWAY, flash forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen Caldwell, was director of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at the University of Utah, and a friend of FP. Quoting Beaudette, p. 149, Fleischmann recounted: After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen to you. I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. On 12/19/2011 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ANYWAY, flash forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen Caldwell, was director of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at the University of Utah, and a friend of FP. Quoting Beaudette, p. 149, Fleischmann recounted: After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen to you. I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Fleischmann Pons Effect replication instructions, including the use of a RFG!
More good info on RFG and magnetic stimulation of the FPE (page 7 section 4.2 Radio Frequency Stimulation): http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf On 12/19/2011 12:13 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Seems Edmund Storms also liked to use the FPE term. Here he describes, almost blow by blow how to replicated the FPE effect. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf Note on page 9. point 7d he states: Inductively couple an RF frequency of 81.9 MHz to the cell through a surrounding coil. Power levels below 30 mW have been found to work well but values up to 1 W can be used. If excess energy is to be produced, it will appear immediately.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Here is a bit of comic relief: http://www.cfeis.com/images/pseudoscepsticks_cartoon.jpg On 12/19/2011 10:13 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. If not sufficient for success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success. I think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. The good news is that revenge is a dish best eaten cold. I think it is better to focus on the promise of cold fusion. The benefits it will bring, if someone can make it work. What happened to the researchers was inevitable. It happens to nearly everyone who tries to bring something valuable to humanity. That's human nature. I hope that this history is not forgotten quickly, and that people learn some caution for a generation. They learn not to jump to conclusions. Not to let ignorant naysayers dominate society. This lesson has been learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, countless times throughout history. I hope that people wake up, and allow 10 or 20 years of academic freedom and progress again, before drifting back to sleep . . . back to their old bad habits. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. I get it. But Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris and most of the others are professors. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you plan to do with it. It seems the most difficult part of your plan is to get your hands on a device. Until you do, if you ever can, I find your rants tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and ridiculous as is his web site.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
So you don't think the way FP were treated and the fact that replication results were either forged or ignored was OK? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. Many have given us encouragement and assistance. Jed's archives are a Aladdin's Cave of FPE wonders. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. On 12/19/2011 2:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you plan to do with it. It seems the most difficult part of your plan is to get your hands on a device. Until you do, if you ever can, I find your rants tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and ridiculous as is his web site.
[Vo]:The Protonic/Nucleonic/Positronic Photon and musings
I had a thought last night for the first time that light can have a few more properties that we (or I) usually consider. Of course the most obvious aspect is frequency and then if it is coherent, how it is polarized and if the wave state has collapse or not. The next aspect I am aware of but consider less often is that some types of light, actually lets say photons (packet of EM) from here in, are created from a single electron moving (or jumping orbit) and the other type I normally consider comes from a dipole antenna which is creating detectable electric fields at the ends and magnetic fields in the middle. This gives rise to momentary thoughts as to if some photons are more magnetic and some more electric. This however goes nowhere since I an perfectly aware that photons move and a moving electric fields creates a moving magnetic field and visa versa. I generally also then consider that the magnetic field is just a convenient construct to simplify understanding relativistic distortions in electric fields that net to zero but have different motion. What I only considered last night is a photon that is constructed not from a moving electron possessing a negative electric field but from something possessing a positive electric field. Mainly in my mind the proton or Anti-Electron. Needless to say, I can't think of anything that emits noticeable light from either of these sources, but why knows how this positive electric field light might differ. And of course, might not differ in any real way at all. Can anyone think of any source for such light? I can only think of an MRI as being an apparent example of such light. This does give me one other thought though, could a photon type be created to interact with the nucleus of an atom (perhaps inducing it to rotate-precess-nutate). And does a nucleus release such a photon it's self? Another thought I had, although this one is not new fro me. I believe that when a photon is absorbed, in reality it is still flying through but perfectly cancelled by an opposite photon created by the movement of fields and charges that we consider absorbed it. Admittedly it would interact with nothing and have no energy. The final 2 thoughts I had was that you can create an unshieldable E or M or EM field by making it of a shape that can't be normally generated, that way no field can counter it. This is because shielding only tries to create an equal and opposite field that matches and cancels the main field. This is clearly and unambiguously seen in transformers where the magnetic fields outside the core are alive and well but undetectable until you vary the flux and then the way they move the inductive influence adds rather than cancels. Since the magnetic fields are not really cancelling we can see the same of electric fields from the atoms, they are still there but balanced (mostly) until one moves creating a type of electric field you can only feel when moving, we term this a magnetic field but that is a fiction. Furthermore that is interesting because it means that the electric fields of every particle fills the universe out to the stars. The other question that is generated is at what point does the packet of moving electric field we call a photon detach from the field since the field extends all the way, could this transition be the wave collapse in different terms? Also what of half photons? Just a bit of a wiggle. They must propagate but I don't know if we normally detect them in the same way, do they form a sub quanta photon packet (oxymoron) or do they remain as waves? Final thought, can light created by a proton or positron be absorbed by an electron and perfectly cancelled (AKA absorbed)? Perhaps, but I am not sure and these things are fun to wonder about. What else is there to discover about the universe of which we have no clue. -- If we doubt we can hardly hope to Shine. Be Alive when you are alive! You can't BE later. Life is not important, significant, serious or weighty. Life is a dance to be enjoyed. It is You and I that are important, Living life is at stake! There is no someday. There is no right way. There is only now. Virtue or Vice, a moment of pain for a lifetime of pleasure, or a moment of pleasure for a lifetime of pain. Construction or destruction, it is just a matter of order in which you experience pain and joy, spirit and integrity or weakness of flesh. If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't doing enough. How you feel is feedback on what you are currently doing and not informing you of what to do, don't wait to feel like it. Do it and see how you feel.
[Vo]:Our FPE device
We have not stopped our work on building a working FPE device. Jed your archives are a gold mine. I'm trying to read ALL the papers as my brain is very good at picking out individual items from different papers and then piecing them together. It was interesting to read the Storm paper giving a lot of hints about how to do a strict FPE replication. I noted his method to clean the palladium. We are working on using a coil formed with thin wall 1 mm diameter Ni tubing, which has the pressurized H2 inside. In the middle of the coil we have placed a ceramic heater with the whole assembly paced in a water jacket. This way the high pressure H2 is only applied to the inside of the tubing. We need a good way to clean the inner and outer surface of the Ni tubing.Would anyone expect Storm's method to work with cleaning thin Ni tubing formed into a coil? Jed I really don't know how you are still sane, knowing what you do and how so many people have either been screwed or ignored. But then maybe I'm too proactive and should learn a bit of your calmness.
Re: [Vo]:Private information about Rossi was the Ampernergo tests described by McKubre
Jed, How we call inidipendent the tests made by Ampenergo ? Do we have something else excepts a bunch of words ? Do you know who they are ? These guys are all friends or in someway related to Rossi. Somewhere there is the list and where thy come from (Leonardo, LTI..). I wouldn't be surprised also that some of them are involved in the TEG story. Sorry but in my world independent test has a different meaning. Regards 2011/12/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions from what you know. Mainly what I know was revealed by McKubre in his recent talk: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf See where it says AmpEnerco Run I These were independent tests done by Ampenergo before they made an agreement with Rossi. Various experts participated, including someone McKubre knows well. He trusts his expert. I know some of those people too, and I trust them. That is not to suggest that I can judge calorimetry as well as McKubre can! Far from it. But it isn't hard to judge these results. These tests were similar to the public tests conducted by Rossi, only they were independent, with someone else's instruments. Somewhat better instruments, proper computers and so on, but basically the same sort of HVAC test procedures. Okay, ask yourself this. Suppose you know that tests similar the 18-hour February test and the October self-sustaining tests were done, with instruments supplied and operated by someone you knew to be an expert, and a trustworthy person. Would that convince you? If the answer is yes, you can see why McKubre and I are pretty confident this result is real. On the other hand, if the HVAC-style testing does not satisfy you, then you will not be convinced. Mary Yugo has said she demands a blank run. As far as I know they did not do one. I think she wants to see a Seebeck calorimeter. I am sure they did not use that. So she would not be satisfied by these tests. That's all there is to it. I have no knowledge of Rossi's personal business. For all I know he might be robbing dozens of investors. I do not think he is. I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing, no evidence, and frankly I could not care less if he is robbing people. I am sure his claims are real. That does not preclude the possibility that he is defrauding people; it would mean he is defrauding them with a genuine cold fusion reactor. Not my problem. Here is a key issue. Rossi's personality is an open book thanks to his website. That is unique to the 21st century. People who dismiss him because of his personality should think about that. Suppose in 1879 Edison had a kept an Internet blog while he invented the incandescent light. Suppose everyone could follow along with his trials and tribulations and his frequent crazy ideas. Now, 140 years later, you can read detailed biographies of him. You can read the lab notebooks. You can see why some of his investors lost their nerve and sold out for pennies on the dollar as he floundered around spending rivers of money, changing the design radically, apparently getting nowhere. In my opinion, his comments were no less extreme than Rossi's; his behavior no less erratic. That is true of many other famous inventors. It is also true of many ordinary programmers, chemists and others doing creative work that is worthy, difficult, but never becomes famous. It is true of some top notch gourmet chefs; a guy I know who can climb and cut down just about any tree with minimal equipment but frightful risk; and many farmers and fishermen in Yamaguchi. People who do extraordinary, creative, or dangerous things are sometimes odd. If they were not odd, they would do these things. In the past, we did not know how odd people such as Edison were until long after they became rich famous, when all their sins were forgiven. Now, with Rossi, we learn of it in real time. My guess is that people such as Mary Yugo cannot look past Rossi's personality because they have not read many biographies, diaries and personal papers left by famous people. They have not met a broad range of people from other cultures, or eccentric people, or downright crazy people. I have. I mean that literally. I grew up encountering people who were diagnosed with mental illness, in the era before effective psychotropic drugs. You can read about them here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_psychiatric_halfway_house.html?id=8wsEAQAAIAAJ (The authors are my mother and my aunt.) In other words, I am used to discounting personality quirks, and looking at the content of the work. That is not an easy thing to do. It is
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: So you don't think the way FP were treated and the fact that replication results were either forged or ignored was OK? But that makes no sense. If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion!
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Hey,Bill, Do you have a Paypal account? It's time for Vorts to ante up. Yep, on paypal it's just my normal email: billb()amasci dotcom (figure out obfuscation) Recent news: Me being insulted by William Shatner on ca-only History channel show Nov 2011 :) William Shatner's Weird or What: Medical Mysteries: SLI Electric humans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neYxvtqH8QMt=0m13s Human lungs as VandeGraaff generators: an electricity disease? http://amasci.com/static/e-disease.html But Shatner did get it half-right. You're supposed to blow your breath towards a foil-leaf electrometer, or the $2 FET electrometer at http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html Lethal speculation: victims with body-charging in hospitals might ignite anesthetic gas, or spark fabrics in oxy tent, even if their body is grounded by medical monitors ...if their breath can charge up distant surfaces. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed I should have said: However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Well said Horace, well said. On 12/19/2011 5:46 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: I should have said: However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans to visit them and to buy stuff from them. If it happens, I will be very pleased. Until it happens and is properly documented, I will doubt it to the extreme. Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the slightest thing thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of confidence. You persist in confusing talk, promises and claims for action. They're not action. By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. Ask him his experiences in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better tests. It may be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
You have seen the high school students doing FPE excess heat experiments at MIT during ICCF-10? They also found transmutated Silver: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm (bout 60% of the way down) and here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm#Photos (Picture of our Jed is 2nd from the top) If they can do it, so will we. Maybe you should ask that as excess heat and transmutations were observed at MIT in Aug 2003 in very simple to replicate experiments conducted by high school students, why did not the scientific world shout about their achievements? On 12/19/2011 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans to visit them and to buy stuff from them. If it happens, I will be very pleased. Until it happens and is properly documented, I will doubt it to the extreme. Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the slightest thing thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of confidence. You persist in confusing talk, promises and claims for action. They're not action. By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. Ask him his experiences in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better tests. It may be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
The use of the term FPE is misleading and confusing. The Wright brothers invented the first controlled flight. It would be nonsensical and misleading to call every kind of winged aircraft a Wright machine, not distinguishing between a 747 and a piper cub. The FP protocol was Pd-D low voltage electrolysis. This differs from Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd- Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc. etc. Not all airplanes are the same, not all LENR devices are the same. There are important differences. There is a vocabulary that describes those differences, and which is used by people in the field. Who is going to know what you are talking about if you call every LENR device an FPE? On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
