Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
From Dr. Melvin Miles: /Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./ Ruby On 9/17/14, 6:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: I'm not comfortable being critical of Miles, who is a fine researcher. And my opinion is not based on anyone's incompetence nor is it based on any particular result - but on a down-to-earth understanding of mass spectrometers and what the specification and error limits actually are, and in looking at all the ways that mistakes can be made at these extremes. It's pretty basic. The challenge of this kind of measurement was always too great to handle on a small budget, and still is- when the resources are limited. Parts per million is the limit of acceptable levels for accuracy. Sure there are few labs in the world that can possibly do better, but we are talking about cold fusion researchers with self-made gadgets and most of this work was done a decade ago. Miles was up against an intractable problem and we should thank him for being completely up front about it. But let's not forget he is talking about a few PARTS PER BILLION. It does not matter how well or how many times you calibrate -- there is no acceptable measurement technique which can derive accuracy at this kind of helium dilution. None of the other 16, 18 or whatever number of measurements - which have purportedly taken place, were robust enough to have made the amount of helium which is needed in order to get the dilution level up to ppm... without extreme enrichment, and that is where the problem lies. Getting the He/D2 ratio higher prior to measurement is what few want to talk about in detail. To make things worse, much worse -- there is a technique for bringing samples up from ppb to ppm which is called gettering or NEG (non evaporable gettering). It can introduce order of magnitude errors. Jones -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/ Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site for news. Eric
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
Hmm... Boron. On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/ Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site for news. Eric
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
Hmm... Lithium Hmm... Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon. Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix. On 18 September 2014 09:43, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Boron. On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/ Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site for news. Eric
RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science - not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. Funny thing, however, in trying to move in that direction. What is more basic and fundamental as a measurement value which needs to be known - than the mass of the proton? Let's focus on that simple item - wrt the broad claim of accuracy at the ppb range. Let me say that as a personal interest, since this is somewhat related but not exactly - I have a collection of mass measurements of the proton, from different Labs around the world, over different time frames. Conveniently, for this discussion - the mass variation in these measurements goes down to around the 9-10 significant digits, but that is where the fun starts. In this case we are not talking about dilution of helium in a mixed gas, but the claim that 1 ppb mass variation with good accuracy is possible. Yes, I realize this is not apples-to-apples, but I think it makes the point that Miles claim is not believable as a practical matter, when it comes down to real-world applicability. The CODATA recommended value for proton mass is 1.672 621 777(74) x 10-27 kg Where 74 ppb is the supposed error range - which would be mean that top labs should all come in with something similar - correct? Even so, this error range is well over 1 ppb and it represents the best effort, Worldwide - for a most important value. Variation is actual measurements, however, as published over the years is huge - especially in countries which may not have wanted to follow the Western lead, and especially back in the nineties. Even Jefferson Lab, no slouch when it comes to measurement - reports a value that diverges way back at the ppm range, as do dozens if not hundreds of other measurements, and most of them were back when Miles work was being done. If the experts cannot get their act together - at greater than ppm on the mass of the proton, given its importance to physics, then I'm simply far from confident that one can accurately discriminate in a situation where there is claimed to be a few ppb of an atom of helium in a mix, the other components of which are so close. Of course, I have never claimed to be an expert on this, only a collector of information from various sources - but I have talked to several experts who agree that this talk about accuracy in the ppb range is closer to wishful thinking than something which can be taken as fact. For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. The think I find most alarming is the circle the wagons mentality that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno's work. It is anti-scientific and counter-productive. From: Ruby From Dr. Melvin Miles: Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb. Ruby
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
It is interesting to consider the higher COP. I went back and read Rossi Forcadi's original article, which is astounding in the level of energy production and COP. The most impressive result to me was .2 watts in and 83 watts out. It would be hard to make an error of that magnitude even with poor instrumentation. Or how about 5.1 watts in and 1006.5 watts out! Hopefully, Rossi's team took the brakes off of the E-cat, and we see some very high out/in ratios in TPR2. Would the skeptics be convinced with 10 watts in and 2000 watts out? ;) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62 On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Lithium Hmm... Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon. Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix. On 18 September 2014 09:43, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Boron. On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/ Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site for news. Eric
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
Its pretty clear that the SPAWAR experiments saw high energy neutrons in their experiments, which were reasonable well funded. They also saw high energy protons and alphas. These were apparently hot fusion type reactions. However, they also saw what they called cold fusion--LENR--reactions that produced no gammas and apparently fused D-D to helium with a 24 Mev distribution of energy. They indicated that the gammas were suppressed and postulated a Mossbauer type effect which distributed the energy to the matrix. The correlation to excess energy is not spelled out in the 2009 presentation, however. It is only briefly discussed in one or two slides of the power point presentation. I remember it is discussed in more detail in another presentation which I do not have handy. Thus, SPAWAR seems to claim both hot fusion and cold fusion at the same time with respect to He formation. See a presentation of their results at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=8ved=0CEwQFjAHurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2009%2F2009SPAWAR-ET-AL-UM.pdfei=L-gaVMrfIcXdoASRmIGoDQusg=AFQjCNGB2CY_kaqEk7hfQgtKRwtrA3GWxgbvm=bv.75742615,d.cGU Bob - Original Message - From: Ian Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world Hmm... Lithium Hmm... Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon. Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix. On 18 September 2014 09:43, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Boron. On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/17/e-cat-rumor-from-a/ Congratulations go to Frank Acland for making this an indispensable site for news. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. 1. McKubre did an experiment where ppm of helium was produced. 2. When you can measure ppb levels with confidence at a high signal to noise ratio, it makes no sense to say it takes . . . ppm of helium. Why not demand parts per hundred? Why not demand 100% pure helium? You are moving the goalposts for no rational reason. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: From Dr. Melvin Miles: *Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb.* Miles wrote this in his papers, and I repeated it in my review. Jones should not raise objections that were answered 24 years ago. He should review the literature more carefully before making statements about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
It's findings like this that have lead some people to the same conclusion: Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the FP Heat Effect (aka radiationless cold fusion) w/ whatever unusual hot fusion effect is being produced (i.e. like Axil linking LeClair's work to cold fusion, which is totally off-base, unless one is ready, at this early juncture, to adopt wholesale his hyper-speculative whispering quantum hall magic gamma shield hypothesis), perhaps by small-scale fracto-fusion, Casimir forces, cavitation, when conditions are right, and so on. That's just spit-balling though, because as we know the neutron-to-tritium ratio is not reflective of known hot fusion reactions in the slightest, so whatever is producing the tritium has got to be a strange reaction pathway as well, because its certainly not commensurate with the excess heat either. This is one of those mysteries that I have seen no theory adequately answer as of yet. Storms made a good go of it in his recent book (at the very least he recognizes and advertises this enigma) but we'll have to await reliable ash data from NiH before any reliable conclusions can be drawn. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Its pretty clear that the SPAWAR experiments saw high energy neutrons in their experiments, which were reasonable well funded. They also saw high energy protons and alphas. These were apparently hot fusion type reactions. However, they also saw what they called cold fusion--LENR--reactions that produced no gammas and apparently fused D-D to helium with a 24 Mev distribution of energy. They indicated that the gammas were suppressed and postulated a Mossbauer type effect which distributed the energy to the matrix. The correlation to excess energy is not spelled out in the 2009 presentation, however. It is only briefly discussed in one or two slides of the power point presentation. I remember it is discussed in more detail in another presentation which I do not have handy. Thus, SPAWAR seems to claim both hot fusion and cold fusion at the same time with respect to He formation. See a presentation of their results at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=8ved=0CEwQFjAHurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2009%2F2009SPAWAR-ET-AL-UM.pdfei=L-gaVMrfIcXdoASRmIGoDQusg=AFQjCNGB2CY_kaqEk7hfQgtKRwtrA3GWxgbvm=bv.75742615,d.cGU Bob - Original Message - *From:* Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:49 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world Hmm... Lithium Hmm... Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon. Moderation may well be the key and granular size and percentage in the mix. On 18 September 2014 09:43, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm... Boron. On 18 September 2014 09:32, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: The Reference to Neutron production is telling. This gives an area to research for others and a clue as to the process, eg one that is capable of producing Neutrons of an energy n. Neutron decay is: n0 → p+ + e− + νe. p and e could be the more important energy producers in LENR! What energy such Neutrons have and where they decay would be a significant proportion of the energy in the reaction; depending on the process that creates such supposed Neutrons. MFMP had gamma bursts in their experiments and that has been reliably repeated both by them selves and other labs. For some time I have thought they were the equivalent of a car back firing that poisons the LENR and that for the reaction to be stable that it had to be prevented as well as for possible health reasons. If the Neutrons are literally Low Energy Neutrons then if the decay with the reaction chamber, and I am talking nanometres here, then they sustain the reaction if they are higher energy they spit out beyond the reaction then we see the classic gamma burst from Neutron decay outside the reactor and such Neutrons don't feed the reaction. Now bear in mind that in such a reaction, Neutrons would probably be a bell curve of energies, some supporting the reaction other Neutrons exiting the reactor proper yet others decaying destructively to the LENR within reaction chamber THEN obtaining fine control of that Neutron energy is a goldilocks reaction! The porridge can be too HOT or too COLD but if it is just right the reaction maintains it self. Such a process of where the Neutrons decay would explain why LENR has been so hard to replicate reliably and Rossi's secret catalyst is an addition that catalyses and decays the neutron at the correct JUST RIGHT goldilocks level. On 18 September 2014 06:05, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of grasping for every little straw, there was an interesting post at E-Cat World:
[Vo]:Heat helium correlation, truth and aceptance
Dear Friends I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/a-contribution-to-heathelium-discussion.html It is about 5 criteria of acceptance. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:niceties about our Century and a bit about LENR
Thank you dear Lennart I have answered in part with my essay of today. We will discuss later the political issues by private posts it's more polite so. Peter On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, Peter it was a bit depressive. I am more optimistic than you are. I think the world is self correcting. Too much of something and there will be a pressure to stop, which eventually will bring things back toward neutral and beyond for a new opposite pressure. I have said many times that I believe we have way too much believe in large organizations and 'fair' limitations. I do not think ever was meant to be fair and I do not think we need large government to protect us from each other. ( BTW In reality the protection they offer is just lip service - combined with a lot of CYA.). Yes, we give up our individual rights so we will be secure by big organizations. No, none owns THE truth. *Intolerance kills people, tolerance destroys the Society.* You say- so why not chose tolerance , it is easier than the opposite. Who wants the totally organized and secure society? You say, that dumbing down people is a major achievement today. Yes, we are exchanging common sense with policies, than nobody is responsible but the policy (which never can be changed just mitigated with three new policies. I predict a reaction within 50 years where the individual becomes in the center and LENR is to me an important possibility. *Kleptocracy is the most natural form of government.** (or is it theocracy?)* As I am sure you know we get the government we deserve and it has nothing to do with party politics and not with the type ideology we are governed by (democracy is as Churchill said - lousy form but we just have not found any better so far - locking everywhere. I think we will find one - the born optimist:) *The world economy- a myriapode with Achilles Heels* maybe I rather think about it as a dinosaurs with Achilles heels all over the backside. Yes, LENR needs to accomplish what you said to be accepted. It can be a financial success first and receive a Nobel prize much later. Rather normal. I hope the Rossi report is positive and then the Scots can do as they want and if Glasgow wants to be a country by itself is also fine. I assume Scotland will have friendly relations with England and Europe. They can make a rule that only people wearing kilts can visit or live there. It is way too cold for me anyhow:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Brad, In the context of my paper it is just a wild guess- I have not the slightest idea when and where will the Report appear. Till now Rossi has alluded to September; Today he said on the JONP blog most probably October but... In which extent it is positive or negative we will see and evaluate. Best, Peter On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Peter, You write: Tomorrow we will receive the first relevant information regarding the Rossi Report simultaneously with Scotland’s vote for independence Can you elaborate as to what report information will be released? And as to whether it will be positive or negative? - Brad On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Due to poisoning with Paracetamol Sinus Forte periodically I become depressive. Then it helps to write essays like this one: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/lenr-and-troubles-with-21st-century.html It is about prediction, LENR is deeply embedded in the context. However what I say about it, is unfortunately true. I hope that paradoxically, this writing will stimulate your LENR optimism. Greetings, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the FP Heat Effect (aka radiationless cold fusion) w/ whatever unusual hot fusion effect is being produced (i.e. like Axil linking LeClair's work to cold fusion, which is totally off-base, unless one is ready, at this early juncture, to adopt wholesale his hyper-speculative whispering quantum hall magic gamma shield hypothesis), perhaps by small-scale fracto-fusion, Casimir forces, cavitation, when conditions are right, and so on. That's just spit-balling though, because as we know the neutron-to-tritium ratio is not reflective of known hot fusion reactions in the slightest, so whatever is producing the tritium has got to be a strange reaction pathway as well, because its certainly not commensurate with the excess heat either. This is one of those mysteries that I have seen no theory adequately answer as of yet. Storms made a good go of it in his recent book (at the very least he recognizes and advertises this enigma) but we'll have to await reliable ash data from NiH before any reliable conclusions can be drawn. Like spin, the cause of LENR is not symmetric; magnetic Anatole field projection has a definite direction. The way in which the magnetic projectors are configured has determining effect to what LENR reaction occurs. For example, the Peterson cell produces gamma and a unique transmutation ash foot print where heavy metals predominate.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MiXH4r-8iA What the NAE produces is based on the geometry that the NAE assumes and the primary directions that the anapole field is pointed. Densely packed NAE in a metal lattice will produce lots of heavy metals. A dilute NAE distribution (DGT) will produce light elements like boron, lithium, and beryllium. Gamma radiation mitigation must be engineered into the system as both DGT and Rossi have done.
Re: [Vo]:niceties about our Century and a bit about LENR
Hi Peter, I saw your post. I agree that the old proverb prepare for the worst and hope for the best is valid. It is just that it feels better to approach problems with a positive attitude - for me at least. I agree about the political side of the issue. I merely wanted to express that I am not convinced by any system and definitely do not support any popular US party. Yes now and then they express the same opinion. The difference is that they have no intention / ability / passion for the implementation. It is just pure propaganda. Kleptocracy do rule. In regards to the habit of take out old already solved problems it is part of the group thinking. Parkinson expressed that in his second law ' Time devoted to discussions about issues is reversed proportional to the importance of the issues'. (The first says that a task takes the time allotted to the task). The general reason is that it is much safer to discuss something you know than to open up to the unknown. BTW I liked your statements about the truth. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you dear Lennart I have answered in part with my essay of today. We will discuss later the political issues by private posts it's more polite so. Peter On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, Peter it was a bit depressive. I am more optimistic than you are. I think the world is self correcting. Too much of something and there will be a pressure to stop, which eventually will bring things back toward neutral and beyond for a new opposite pressure. I have said many times that I believe we have way too much believe in large organizations and 'fair' limitations. I do not think ever was meant to be fair and I do not think we need large government to protect us from each other. ( BTW In reality the protection they offer is just lip service - combined with a lot of CYA.). Yes, we give up our individual rights so we will be secure by big organizations. No, none owns THE truth. *Intolerance kills people, tolerance destroys the Society.* You say- so why not chose tolerance , it is easier than the opposite. Who wants the totally organized and secure society? You say, that dumbing down people is a major achievement today. Yes, we are exchanging common sense with policies, than nobody is responsible but the policy (which never can be changed just mitigated with three new policies. I predict a reaction within 50 years where the individual becomes in the center and LENR is to me an important possibility. *Kleptocracy is the most natural form of government.** (or is it theocracy?)* As I am sure you know we get the government we deserve and it has nothing to do with party politics and not with the type ideology we are governed by (democracy is as Churchill said - lousy form but we just have not found any better so far - locking everywhere. I think we will find one - the born optimist:) *The world economy- a myriapode with Achilles Heels* maybe I rather think about it as a dinosaurs with Achilles heels all over the backside. Yes, LENR needs to accomplish what you said to be accepted. It can be a financial success first and receive a Nobel prize much later. Rather normal. I hope the Rossi report is positive and then the Scots can do as they want and if Glasgow wants to be a country by itself is also fine. I assume Scotland will have friendly relations with England and Europe. They can make a rule that only people wearing kilts can visit or live there. It is way too cold for me anyhow:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Brad, In the context of my paper it is just a wild guess- I have not the slightest idea when and where will the Report appear. Till now Rossi has alluded to September; Today he said on the JONP blog most probably October but... In which extent it is positive or negative we will see and evaluate. Best, Peter On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Peter, You write: Tomorrow we will receive the first relevant information regarding the Rossi Report simultaneously with Scotland’s vote for independence Can you elaborate as to what report information will be released? And as to whether it will be positive or negative? - Brad On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Peter Gluck
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
How a system behaves is determined by its interaction properties http://phys.org/tags/properties/. An important concept in condensed matter physics http://phys.org/tags/condensed+matter+physics/ for describing the energy distribution of electrons in solids is the Fermi surface http://phys.org/tags/surface/, named for Italian physicist Enrico Fermi. The existence of the Fermi surface is a direct consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle, which forbids two identical fermions from occupying the same quantum state simultaneously. Energetically, the Fermi surface divides filled energy levels from the empty ones. For electrons and other fermionic particles with isotropic interactions – identical properties in all directions - the Fermi surface is spherical. This is the normal case in nature and the basis for many physical phenomena, says Francesca Ferlaino from the Institute for Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbruck.* When the particle interaction is anisotropic – meaning directionally dependent – the physical behavior of a system is completely altered. Introducing anisotropic interactions can deform the Fermi surface and it is predicted to assume an ellipsoidal shape.* Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-physicists-insights-world-quantum-materials.html#jCp On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Multiple reaction pathways are taking place in one system (a cocktail of sorts). As a result, we see perpetual conflation of the FP Heat Effect (aka radiationless cold fusion) w/ whatever unusual hot fusion effect is being produced (i.e. like Axil linking LeClair's work to cold fusion, which is totally off-base, unless one is ready, at this early juncture, to adopt wholesale his hyper-speculative whispering quantum hall magic gamma shield hypothesis), perhaps by small-scale fracto-fusion, Casimir forces, cavitation, when conditions are right, and so on. That's just spit-balling though, because as we know the neutron-to-tritium ratio is not reflective of known hot fusion reactions in the slightest, so whatever is producing the tritium has got to be a strange reaction pathway as well, because its certainly not commensurate with the excess heat either. This is one of those mysteries that I have seen no theory adequately answer as of yet. Storms made a good go of it in his recent book (at the very least he recognizes and advertises this enigma) but we'll have to await reliable ash data from NiH before any reliable conclusions can be drawn. Like spin, the cause of LENR is not symmetric; magnetic Anatole field projection has a definite direction. The way in which the magnetic projectors are configured has determining effect to what LENR reaction occurs. For example, the Peterson cell produces gamma and a unique transmutation ash foot print where heavy metals predominate.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MiXH4r-8iA What the NAE produces is based on the geometry that the NAE assumes and the primary directions that the anapole field is pointed. Densely packed NAE in a metal lattice will produce lots of heavy metals. A dilute NAE distribution (DGT) will produce light elements like boron, lithium, and beryllium. Gamma radiation mitigation must be engineered into the system as both DGT and Rossi have done.
Re: [Vo]:NY Times: Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind
I went to the Wattsup.. source article, and found that the problem (apparently) is undersized transformers at the towers. This is NOT a reflection on the feasibility of wind power, but on the so-called prowess of German engineering. But yes, the engineers maybe were pressured by management to cut costs, went all gooey in the head. Jeez. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer... On 9/15/2014 10:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Quoting this article: Offshore Wind power: Even Germany Can’t get it Right According to Breitbart, Germany’s flagship Bard 1 offshore wind farm has turned into a bottomless money pit, with stakeholders frantically lawyering up, scrambling to pin the blame and ongoing money hemorrhage onto other parties. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/13/offshore-wind-power-even-germany-cant-get-it-right/ My thought – if even the Germans, with their legendary high precision engineering skills, can’t make offshore wind work, surely it is time to pull the plug on this technically infeasible dead end? Let me rephrase that slightly: My thought – if even the Japanese, with their legendary high precision engineering skills, can’t make nuclear fission reactors work, surely it is time to pull the plug on this technically infeasible dead end? Let me add: After trillions of dollars of RD, subsidies for 70 years, one accident at Fukushima lost more money and destroyed more assets than any other source of electricity in history, and forced the shut down of the entire industry. In one day, nuclear power was revealed as the most dangerous and expensive source of energy. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On 9/18/14, 6:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science -- not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. At some point, we have to have confidence in the results from a lab. Dr. Miles has defended his results successfully from all sides, and pays attention to details to do it. As a former Navy scientist, he had access to what he needed. He does not state conclusions lightly. For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. That is your prerogative. However, the fact the the heat-helium correlation has been made multiple times since Miles' work, should factor into anyone's thinking on the matter. In particular, the work SRI did is exemplary. The correlation is strong. In any other field, this would be clearly seen as fact. In cold fusion, it seems the lack of discipline, the lack of historical knowledge, the lack of knowledge of the experimental data, combined with the euphoria of social media, allows any unfounded criticism to be amplified beyond it's usefulness. The think I find most alarming is the circle the wagons mentality that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno's work. It is anti-scientific and counter-productive. Neither I or Miles have said anything about Mizuno. I am not sure who is circling the wagons. To quell confusion in the minds of lurkers, and those who might positively contribute to the field, I am setting the record straight: heat and helium are correlated for Pd-D systems by professional scientists from agencies and institutes who've successfully defended their work for over two decades. What is means is there is a clear nuclear effect from safe, table-top cells. And when deuterium is the fuel, helium is a result, a result that correlates with the mass-energy expected from DD fusion. This does not point to any particular theory, only a correlation of effects. See pages 86-91 in Storms' The Science of LENR published 2007 by World Scientific for the historical facts on the heat-helium correlation, a very real and documented effect. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 I will end my participation in this discussion here. It's back to work for me, again. Sigh. I wish you success in your research efforts, Jones. Ruby *From:*Ruby From Dr. Melvin Miles: /Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb./ Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Re: A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Hello Jones Helium was also measured in the experiment done by A. de Ninno e.a published in 2002. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf Unfortunately after the publication only silence was the result. The youtube video about what happened before and after the publication has unfortunately been removed. Peter v Noorden From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science – not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. Funny thing, however, in trying to move in that direction. What is more basic and fundamental as a measurement value which needs to be known - than the mass of the proton? Let’s focus on that simple item - wrt the broad claim of accuracy at the ppb range. Let me say that as a personal interest, since this is somewhat related but not exactly - I have a collection of mass measurements of the proton, from different Labs around the world, over different time frames. Conveniently, for this discussion - the mass variation in these measurements goes down to around the 9-10 significant digits, but that is where the fun starts. In this case we are not talking about dilution of helium in a mixed gas, but the claim that 1 ppb mass variation with good accuracy is possible. Yes, I realize this is not apples-to-apples, but I think it makes the point that Miles claim is not believable as a practical matter, when it comes down to real-world applicability. The CODATA “recommended” value for proton mass is 1.672 621 777(74) x 10-27 kg Where 74 ppb is the supposed error range – which would be mean that top labs should all come in with something similar – correct? Even so, this error range is well over 1 ppb and it represents the best effort, Worldwide - for a most important value. Variation is actual measurements, however, as published over the years is huge - especially in countries which may not have wanted to follow the Western lead, and especially back in the nineties. Even Jefferson Lab, no slouch when it comes to measurement - reports a value that diverges way back at the ppm range, as do dozens if not hundreds of other measurements, and most of them were back when Miles work was being done. If the experts cannot get their act together - at greater than ppm on the mass of the proton, given its importance to physics, then I’m simply far from confident that one can accurately discriminate in a situation where there is claimed to be a few ppb of an atom of helium in a mix, the other components of which are so close. Of course, I have never claimed to be an expert on this, only a collector of information from various sources - but I have talked to several experts who agree that this talk about accuracy in the ppb range is closer to wishful thinking than something which can be taken as fact. For me, and despite what Miles has told you today - the lack of gammas overwhelms any claim that I have seen of helium in proportion to heat. But again, all it takes is an experiment where ppm of helium is being made, and we should have that report in a matter of months. The think I find most alarming is the “circle the wagons” mentality that seems to be happening in certain cliques against Mizuno’s work. It is anti-scientific and counter-productive. From: Ruby From Dr. Melvin Miles: Jones Beene is simply wrong about the accuracy of helium-4 measurements. The laboratories that I used for my samples specialized in highly accurate helium measurements. The DOI lab in Texas could easily measure 1 ppb. The Rockwell lab with Dr.Brian Oliver was even better with an accuracy of 0.1 ppb. Ruby
[Vo]:Is Rossi Vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach?
Hi all If the mention of Neutron emission by Paul on e-catworld is correct; then is Rossi fully vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach to LENR development? I say Goldilocks nature of LENR because I conjecture that control of the Neutron emission is the key to maintaining an LENR. I think Rossi's catalyst forms an important part of the NAE and may sustain it with ionised emissions from an absorber or more likely moderate i,t keeping the Neutron flow even, this is standard for a hot fission reactor so I see no reason LENR would be any different. As water acts as a general Neutron absorber/moderator it may also explain why the F/P water based reaction was not as successful. TOO HOT! if the Neutrons are too fast they escape the reactor/NAE producing Gamma bursts outside the reactor vessel and starving the reactor of Neutrons the equivalent of a car backfiring and the reaction shuts down. TOO COLD! Not enough Neutrons or too slow to sustain the reaction or they all get absorbed in a moderator and the reaction starves of power and stalls like a car without enough gas. JUST SO and the Neutron emissions are constant and steady and the reaction cruises along. This Goldilocks zone would explain why so much LENR research is so hit and miss. On the Catalyst I think moderation is the key. Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon are the catalyst and provide that even Neutron flow that I think is key to a sustained repeatable LENR. Boron or Lithium could act as absorbers that then emit ionised particles at a lower than hot fusion or normal fission energy level; then they may be part of the heat production system. And may be part of the Catalyst, maybe both processes are required. I speculate that once again granular size and percentage in the mix of moderators/absorbers are key. That we are looking at a bell curve of NAE's in a reactor mass and that the mix of catalyst in the Nickel shifts the Neutron production either way, fast or slow. I submit that Rossi's Edisonian approach to the field is what has allowed him to discover the LENR Goldilocks zone. Kind Regards walker
Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi Vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach?
Dear Erik Ander: I am in very good health, even if I work 16 hours per day with my E-Cats. *As I said, we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we know now perfectly why. I will give the theory in November.*Thank you for your attention, Warm regards, A.R. = S Woosnam July 19th, 2011 at 3:33 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-54541 Dear Mr. Rossi, First may I say how refreshing it is for a scientist such as yourself to engage with the public in the way you have done here. I think it is commendable. Second could I ask you about a technical aspect of your invention? I know you do not subscribe to the Widom-Larsen theoretical explanation of your empirical results; I found their theory rather plausible save for the neutron capture gammas which one would expect but aren’t observed. If neutrons aren’t generated (whether or not in the way they propose), what is the purpose of the boron shield? Andrea Rossi July 19th, 2011 at 4:53 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-54570 Dear S. Woosnam: Good question. *We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just in case…*Warm regards, A.R. == Andrea Rossi May 1st, 2011 at 4:19 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=488cpage=1#comment-36214 Dear Mr Mauro Rossi: 1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours 2- *I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.*3- No, I didn’t. Warm regards, A.R. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all If the mention of Neutron emission by Paul on e-catworld is correct; then is Rossi fully vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach to LENR development? I say Goldilocks nature of LENR because I conjecture that control of the Neutron emission is the key to maintaining an LENR. I think Rossi's catalyst forms an important part of the NAE and may sustain it with ionised emissions from an absorber or more likely moderate i,t keeping the Neutron flow even, this is standard for a hot fission reactor so I see no reason LENR would be any different. As water acts as a general Neutron absorber/moderator it may also explain why the F/P water based reaction was not as successful. TOO HOT! if the Neutrons are too fast they escape the reactor/NAE producing Gamma bursts outside the reactor vessel and starving the reactor of Neutrons the equivalent of a car backfiring and the reaction shuts down. TOO COLD! Not enough Neutrons or too slow to sustain the reaction or they all get absorbed in a moderator and the reaction starves of power and stalls like a car without enough gas. JUST SO and the Neutron emissions are constant and steady and the reaction cruises along. This Goldilocks zone would explain why so much LENR research is so hit and miss. On the Catalyst I think moderation is the key. Graphite and Beryllium or maybe a Hydrocarbon are the catalyst and provide that even Neutron flow that I think is key to a sustained repeatable LENR. Boron or Lithium could act as absorbers that then emit ionised particles at a lower than hot fusion or normal fission energy level; then they may be part of the heat production system. And may be part of the Catalyst, maybe both processes are required. I speculate that once again granular size and percentage in the mix of moderators/absorbers are key. That we are looking at a bell curve of NAE's in a reactor mass and that the mix of catalyst in the Nickel shifts the Neutron production either way, fast or slow. I submit that Rossi's Edisonian approach to the field is what has allowed him to discover the LENR Goldilocks zone. Kind Regards walker
RE: [Vo]:Re: A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Hi Peter, This is a good experiment, and thanks for mentioning it (but it is only in the range of 10-20 milliwatts total power) and it depends completely on a NEG to enrich the very low helium production by a factor of ~1000:1. OTOH the equipment at ENEA is top notch. I suspect that it is the most reliable ever used in the field. Preparata was one of the BEST minds ever in LENR, IMHO. Too bad, he is not around. But what this means, being milliwatt, is that instead of depending on the MS for an accurate indication of what is going on, and the extremely dubious possibility of ppb measurement - you are depending on the enrichment ratio, which you calculate that the getter gives you. Imagine that! No one, including the experts like Rothwell, have adequately acknowledged that the getter, which little more than a crude sponge – has become the critical element in this whole discussion! Do you trust a sponge for this? Well, the “Elaine” character on Seinfeld certainly could, and that is the way that I view this whole concocted scenario of ppb helium – which is comedy masquerading as science. And this makes the results extremely suspicious to others and especially skeptics, yet not necessarily wrong. There is no doubt some helium is produced in the reaction. It is incidental or a major contributor? It looks to me like the helium could provide microwatts of power here – but probably not more than 500. This means incidental as in QM, not major. So in the end, yes there is a fractional correlation of excess heat to helium, but it is at the microwatt to milliwatt level, and nowhere close to providing an accurate answer. Today – in 2014 - if you are not talking 50 watts net and 20 watts gain, forget it, and a kilowatt is the goal. I am sorry to say that, because I have little doubt that cold fusion works at the milliwatt level, in its mode as a QM effect - with helium at low levels - but that is “ancient history” so to speak. The future depends on higher probability than QM provides, and which Mizuno is apparently prepared to deliver (and maybe your hero, Randy Mills, can deliver as well). Jones From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl Hello Jones Helium was also measured in the experiment done by A. de Ninno e.a published in 2002. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf Unfortunately after the publication only silence was the result. The youtube video about what happened before and after the publication has unfortunately been removed. Peter v Noorden From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 3:24 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation Well, Ruby I hope Miles is correct (from the standpoint of strong LENR advocacy on my part) and I thank you for following up with the proper question. All of us here should only be concerned with the science – not promoting one theory or another. Most of us do want to promote a proper understanding of what makes LENR work, however and sometimes that goes against the grain. Funny thing, however, in trying to move in that direction. What is more basic and fundamental as a measurement value which needs to be known - than the mass of the proton? Let’s focus on that simple item - wrt the broad claim of accuracy at the ppb range. Let me say that as a personal interest, since this is somewhat related but not exactly - I have a collection of mass measurements of the proton, from different Labs around the world, over different time frames. Conveniently, for this discussion - the mass variation in these measurements goes down to around the 9-10 significant digits, but that is where the fun starts. In this case we are not talking about dilution of helium in a mixed gas, but the claim that 1 ppb mass variation with good accuracy is possible. Yes, I realize this is not apples-to-apples, but I think it makes the point that Miles claim is not believable as a practical matter, when it comes down to real-world applicability. The CODATA “recommended” value for proton mass is 1.672 621 777(74) x 10-27 kg Where 74 ppb is the supposed error range – which would be mean that top labs should all come in with something similar – correct? Even so, this error range is well over 1 ppb and it represents the best effort, Worldwide - for a most important value. Variation is actual measurements, however, as published over the years is huge - especially in countries which may not have wanted to follow the Western lead, and especially back in the nineties. Even Jefferson Lab, no slouch when it comes to measurement - reports a value that diverges way back at the ppm range, as do dozens if not hundreds of other measurements, and most of them were back when Miles work was being done. If the experts cannot get their act
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Miles knew the history of the samples, but he did not tell the groups operating the mass spectrometers. Miles described this in his papers, and I described it in my review: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf I suggest you review the review. I read it and was impressed until I became confused by the statistical analysis discussion on page eight. On the one hand you said the duds did not produce any sign of helium above ground: *Electrolysis power levels during dud runs were raised and loweredconsiderably, from a half-watt to two watts, with no measurable effect on the heliumbackground,* but then you quote Miles, *For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess heat was measuredin 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18 studies. Thus 12 experiments yielded noexcess heat and 15 measurements gave no excess helium.* You pointed out in an earlier post that he did not know before hand which were dud cells and which active cells so that means the 33 trials include both dud cells and active cells. If so this implies that some dud cells did produce excess helium since he does not say the 18 cases which produced helium were only associated with the 21 cells which produced excess heat. The validity of his subsequent statistical argument that these numbers constitute evidence of a strong statistical correlation of heat to helium is impossible to gauge unless we are told how many of the dud cells showed helium: *If one uses these experimental results as random probabilities of P(heat) = 21/33 for excess heat and P(He) = 18/33 for excess **helium, then the probability of random agreement (Pa) for our heat and * *helium measurements * *would be . . . 0.512, and the probability of random disagreement (Pd) would be . . . 0.488. **The presence or absence of excess heat was always recorded prior to the helium * *measurement and was not communicated to the helium laboratory. [The ìblind testî * *procedure.] Based on our experimental results, the random probability of the helium * *measurement correlating with the calorimetric measurement is not exactly one-half. This is * *analogous to flipping a weighted coin where heads are more probable than tails. The * *probability of exactly three mismatches in 33 experiments, therefore, would be . . . 1.203 × * *10^-6 . . . * *The total probability of three or less mismatches in 33 studies would be . . . 1/750,000 . . . * *Furthermore, it is very unlikely that random errors would consistently yield helium-4 * *production rates in the appropriate range of 1011 - 1012 atoms/s per watt of excess power . . . * Harry
Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi Vindicated by the Goldilocks nature of LENR in his choice of an Edisonian approach?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Good question. We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just in case… I'm going to guess that they have boron to shield from spallation neutrons resulting from this reaction: p + d → 2p + n This would be an anticipated side channel if there are fast protons flying out from the surface of the substrate. The number of these reactions would be a function of the relative fraction of deuterium to hydrogen in the gas and of the cross section for this reaction at the typical energy of a fast proton that has been partly stopped through elastic collisions with other protons. There's a chance the rate for this reaction would be fairly low. The neutrons would either decay through electron emission or be captured by and activate larger atoms in the environment. If the overall heat effect is occurring through deuteron stripping with lattice sites, as has been suggested elsewhere, such spallations would take away some of the deuterium fuel. Eric (Note that the original responses from Rossi do not have bold font.)
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: However, they also saw what they called cold fusion--LENR--reactions that produced no gammas and apparently fused D-D to helium with a 24 Mev distribution of energy. The discussion of a possible dd reaction (reaction 5, on slide 50), is a hypothetical one, talking about what might be going on. The title of the slide is Possible Nuclear Pathways. I doubt they are making a statement that they believe that dd fusion is going on; they seem to be suggesting that it is one of different possible reactions that might be happening in the systems they studied. Eric
Re: [Vo]:gossip from Paul, at E-Cat world
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: ... whatever is producing the tritium has got to be a strange reaction pathway as well, because its certainly not commensurate with the excess heat either. I'm wondering whether tritium might occur through reactions such as the following: n + 6Li → t + 4He + Q (4.78 MeV) If there were a very small number of neutrons arising from spallations, you might get some tritium through channels such as these. The neutrons would be the gating factor, and if there are very few of them, you would even fewer reactions like this, as most neutrons would not encounter a lithium atom, and most lithium atoms would be 7Li rather than 6Li. I believe Ed would strongly disagree with this analysis, objecting that tritium has been seen when there is no lithium. But as in the previous case, I would want to closely examine such a statement. Ed would also say that any 3He found is a daughter of such tritium, which seems reasonable. Eric
